Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrospective diagnoses of autism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW, WP:SK#1. Whether specific content on the article is appropriate is an editorial discussion best left to the article's talk page, as it has no bearing on the notability of the article subject. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective diagnoses of autism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was started in 2005, but much has changed since then, especially around WP:BLP. The core problem with this list lies in the difference between a list and a category(of which it is substantially duplicative, incidentally). Much of those retrospective diagnoses come from Michael Fitzgerald, who is one source and controversial. It would be better to merge the specific descriptions into other Wikipedia articles if necessary. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_with_autism_spectrum_disorders for similar arguments Ylevental (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another bad faith nomination as per the Jim Sinclair AfD and a touch of butthurt as well over the Adolf Hitler claim on this page. Agree with the Fitzgerald note, but there are plenty of other sources making this able to stand on it's own. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list is unnecessary. There is too much speculation and too many figures. This is the only "retrospective diagnoses" list on Wikipedia. Ylevental (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not happy with waiting for the AfD or building a consensus, the nominator removed the list in the article and explained their true motive in this and numerous similar nominations: "Removing list of individuals and specific figures, as this could be used to push an agenda". What agenda? The same agenda espoused by the various organizations and individuals covered in the other nominated articles:the idea that autism may be something other than an illness to be cured. Whether or not information from reliable sources could be used to support an agenda is a great organizing theme for a book burning. It is not, however, within the policies or guidelines of Wikipedia. The subject is clearly notable and well sourced. Whether or not the list is appropriate is a subject for discussion aimed at a consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I saw a link to this AFD at ANI. Based on the title I thought this article could be problematic, if extra effort hadn't been put into it to make sure it was well referenced, and neutrally written. But, after looking at the article I am satisfied that enough effort has been put in to referencing and neutrality that any problems challengers see with it should be addressed through regular editing, and discussion on the talk page -- not deletion.
For what it is worth I extend AGF to the nominator. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.