Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases


 * 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 - or it was a no consensus for deletion. Changes were made seen by the discussion but sources and some expansion would be needed to improve the article.-- JForget 22:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional diseases

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another collection of trivial fiction-listcruft. Fails WP:N and WP:FICTION, specifically: "...fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources''. For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content"."

- WP:FICTION . With no reliable sources, no "real-world content", and no notability, this list is original research and indiscriminant information. Wikipedia is neither in the business of summarizing plots nor cataloging fictional plot devices. For precedents, see AFDs here and here and DRV here.
 * Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 13:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: An interesting collection of information, but doesn't meet the guidelines listed above. - Rjd0060 15:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Patient discharged Reliable, notable, verifiable sources are found in each opus' article. Delusions of source absence is a case of in-linitis, an obsessive crave for inline citations due a deficiency of hypertextual cognitive processes. A dose of Citations missing is sufficient as a palliative for this article symptoms--Victor falk 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It is an interesting and useful list. Just because it comes from multiple sources does not make it original research. If sources are needed, they can be added to the individual entries as has been done with List of longest suspension bridge spans This is a feature article yet the following statement is unreferenced:
 * So the top 23 bridges on this list are also currently the longest 23 spans of all types of vehicular bridges.
 * Where does one draw the line between referencing and over referencing.
 * One must be careful where one draws the line between original research and the simple compilation of existing research that has not previously been assembled in the same form. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia, to pull together existing data in a concise summary format. This list does exactly that. Additionally every entry is link back to one or more other articles which is in itself a type of reference.
 * Carrying the point forward, if this list is considered not notable due to its fictional content, then what of the 45+ articles in Category:Fictional diseases? Or do we say that if there is a category then there should not be a list. Lists provide a way to pull multiple entries together in a way that categories can not. Both are useful and serve their own specific purposes.  Dbiel (Talk) 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You completely bypass the reasons given for deletion, namely the complete lack of "substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" that deals with "information [that] describes the real-world aspects of the concept". A collection of non-notable items does not automagically become notable when grouped together.
 * "Interesting" and "useful" are generally not germane AFD arguments.
 * See the previous AFDs and DRV referenced above for a more complete dialogue of these points.
 * Cheers! /Blaxthos 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that it is exactly on point per your references but it should be noted that there are numerous sites that have made reference to this Wikipedia list. I agree that does not meet the notability rules but it does show the value of the list.
 * This compilation of fictional diseases was made possible by yet another great list from Wikipedia: List of Fictional Diseases. Posted by Marie Linder at: http://marielinder.blogspot.com/2007/03/will-bad-case-hypochondriacs-worry.html - 73k - 
 * List of fictional diseases - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase. This is a list of fictional diseases, named medical conditions that do not exist. These include naturally evolved, accidentally man-made or intentional: http://www.indopedia.org/List_of_fictional_diseases.html - 19k -
 * Will work on finding better examples, out of time right now Dbiel (Talk) 19:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you agree that the article does not meet our requirements for inclusion, but you assert we should keep it simply because some blogs and other sites reference it? /Blaxthos 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No I do not agree, but I am going to need a bit of time to develop the point but for now reference to the requirements of Lists (stand-alone lists) which seem to me to have been met. Dbiel (Talk) 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you don't agree? You just said:  "I agree that does not meet the notability rules".  /Blaxthos 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not flip flopping. You twisted my statement which was a reply to "does not meet our requirements for inclusion". My agreement was on the point of notability rules for articles, that though they apply to list, they do not apply in exactly the same way. And even if the list does not fully meet notability rules, notability is not the ONLY reason for inclusion or removal. It needs to be balanced with the other rules.  Categories are not notable, but they are an important part of Wikipedia. Notability can be interpreted from many points of view.  I simply acknowledge your POV regarding notability, not its application as to inclusion or removal of this list article. Dbiel (Talk) 02:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And back to the issue of notability; List of longest suspension bridge spans (a featured article) entries do not have any external links to "notable" sources only to self promoting sites, though nearly all do have their own article, does that mean that those without separate articles should be deleted; I think not.
 * Nearly all entries link back to other Wikipedia entries, where in most cases the referenced "fictional disease" is an important element in the article. This list pulls together all these similar Wikipedia entries that are not otherwise linked. Dbiel (Talk) 12:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:FICTION and the numerous precedents (previous AFD/DRV) for the community's interpretation of your argument. /Blaxthos 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not only are nearly all entries in this list completely trivial/nonnotable, but there isn't even an article to go with this list (==notability issues as a whole). All notable diseases are already included in the said category, so that information is not lost by deleting this list. Someone write an article first; then this list can be recreated with the non-trivial entries. – sgeureka t•c 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that there is no article to go with it? It links to numerous articles, It has an opening section. It is broken up into different groups of lists. This seems to meet the requirements of Lists (stand-alone lists)
 * ''Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles, and as such are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.
 * It seems to me that you are pushing the and others to a greater extend that should be applied to lists in general. It appears to me to meet the requirements of Lists (stand-alone lists) Dbiel (Talk) 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have also stated that "All notable diseases are already included in the said category.." Which would imply that at least some of the contents do meet the requirements of Notability (fiction). I may be reading too much into your statement, but it appears that you are saying that since the category is there, that the list is not necessary or needed to which I strongly disagree. Dbiel (Talk) 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean, there is no article Fictional diseases (it's just bluelinked because it redirects to this list) that explains the notability and cultural impact of the concept. The intro basically says "Diseases are [insert definition], and the following are fictional," a trivial dictdef of the article title. I do not doubt "Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view etc" of this list but WP:NOTABILITY (or in this case WP:FICT). This is always a problem with fiction, because it already serves as its own (primary) source that satisfies all core policies, and wikipedia has no lack of knowledgable and eager fiction-editors (I am one). But everyone can make up fictional diseases in exponentially increasing numbers compared to real diseases, and with the exception of a few, all are non-notable. As I see it, WP:FICT applies before we can judge this list with the standards of Lists (stand-alone lists). Even if this topic may satisfy WP:FICT once an actual article is written, this list is excessive and is in my eyes nothing more than a trivial dumping ground for "hey, there was a fictional disease in the book I just read, and no-one can delete my addition to this list as it's true." I also had a better look at the linked diseases and the diseases in the category, and I am surprised to report that even those article would have a hard time surviving AfD unharmed, as they are completely in-universe, with no assertion of real-world notability. This reinforces my !vote. – sgeureka t•c 13:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Dbiel's point that there is a category for fictional diseases and that there are 45 entries on it is well-taken. Unlike fictional chemical elements and compounds, which are usually mentioned in passing, fictitious diseases can be (a) analogs to real illnesses (b) the bases for a larger plot such as the Andromeda Strain, Outbreak, etc., where the fictional illness is used to describe current medicine and (c) a reference for later medical crises.  Mandsford 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but, surely, if these diseases have such significance, they will have been mentioned in third party sources. This list does a lot of things that a category does not, and is also more accessible to the average reader, but I think it should be trimmed down to only entries mentioned in third party sources, or possibly v(although I prefer the former option) cut down only to diseases deemed notable enough to have their own entries. J Milburn 11:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with this list, it's riddled with fancruft that should be trimmed. Also I don't like how it's organised (alphabetical by disease name), it should be by the work's title. But you can bet there are for the ones I name in my comment below.--Victor falk 15:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I removed the Citations missing I had put when casting my vote above. There is no need for citations in this list, those should be available in the disease's article (Rage (fictional virus), Closed Shell Syndrome), or in the article about the work where they play a major role: The White Plague, Snow Crash.--Victor falk 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't care how this page has been redone, it's still not a notable topic for an encyclopedia, the elements can be merged to respective pages. Dannycali 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - massive unending compendium seekign to capture every made-up disease ever mentioned in a work of fiction. Implicates WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA. One in 100, maybe one in 1000, made-up diseases warrant encyclopedic coverage and those that warrant it should have articles. Otto4711 16:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was apparently the original intention, and I fully agree that we cannot have such a list. Please note how I have modified the inclusion criterion: --Victor falk 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your signature with timestamprs with a comprehensive and organized reference. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep with proper documentation, more of these would be notable. btw.  if they have an article on wikipedia... aren't they notable?  so the not notable argument fails here.  the list is strongly organized and delimited.    this is also solidly encyclopedic. --Buridan 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Even now, adequately documented. Since when are major plot elements in major works not notable? The advantage of a list is that it can be organized in multiple ways. I personally agree that the original article on the work should be sufficient documentation, but i think the present consensus may be to actually cite it in every instance in the table. I think that's a perversion of the generally sound rule of not documenting WP from WP--articles like this are a list and summary of the basic articles. I think each one of them could be documented as important from reviews of the work, if that is thought to be necessary. The collection of this material is unique in extent, and useful--and useful is one ofthe considerations for a list. some of the items are misplaced or erroneous or dont belong--but that's an editing problem. DGG (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Plot elements are notable when they have "received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" that "describes the real-world aspects of the concept". I'm not sure "since when" this has been part of WP:FICTION, but does the timeframe really matter?  We're not in the business of cataloging plot devices; truely notable items will qualify for their own articles, which can be serviced by a category... the rest should be nuked.  Notability is not inhereted.  /Blaxthos 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as really well put together article that successfully links together a common thread in fiction and that will provide readehttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png


 * keep sofixit I have re-organised it according to media and removed a crufty entry or two. I think it should make clear that in principle this list is perfectly non-objectionable: --Victor falk 02:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This AfD should probably be closed and reopened, or simply closed based on the fact that the article (list) has been drasticly rewritten since the start of this AfD, which in itself requires an entirely new look at the current state of the article in relationship to this AfD. Previous points may or maynot apply. I restored the AfD tag on the article as until this this closed the tag should not be removed Dbiel (Talk) 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sry for removing the tag, I forgot about it when copypasting from my sandbox--Victor falk 06:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisting might be a smoother solution than closing and opening again? --Victor falk 06:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No - No matter how much you've trimmed, the article is still completely void of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, as noted in the AFD rationale. Closing and re-opening (or re-listing the AFD) won't change that fact; the delete comments all deal with those issues directly (and those concerns/objections have not been fixed).  This is not, by our own rulse, acceptable content for a serious encyclopedia.  /Blaxthos 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind about the procedural details. The sources are in each's disease's article (you don't expect List of Oceanian countries to have any sources, do you?) It provides information the category cannot, a short description of each disease, and a thematic grouping. I cannot help but believe that people want to delete because they fear it could be a cruft magnet. And, assuredly, it was designed as such when nominated. Its aim was to include every fictional disease that ever got mentioned in even the most obsure computer game or tv series. That would be unencyclopedic. And yet, it did not have entries for major works such as Outbreak, The Andromeda Strain, or Snow Crash...--victor falk 02:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, this article is clearly not needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - that's your personal opinion of the subject. Others, like writers and readers of fiction, may find the subject informative, entertaining, and useful.  Wikipedia has a little of something for everyone.  Viva la difference!   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Firstly, there is a category for the articles contained in the list. Second, fictional diseases may play a huge part in advancing books' plots, one example I can think of off the top of my head is the Descolada virus in the novel Speaker for the Dead. Neran e i   (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not for plot summaries.  /Blaxthos 00:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment as it happens, this aticle is not a lot summary--as even the title makes evident. And the link for Not inherited does not mention that term. The true link is WP:NOTINHERITED which is an essay, not policy or guideline. There is no rule prohibiting this sort of article or this content. And. per WP:N, only the general subject must be notable, not the individual items. They just have to be relevant. DGG (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Could someone (or closing admin) please check for WP:Civilty issues on this page. We can disagree and remain civil if pleasant just isn't possible. Benjiboi 09:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Congrats on the re-write, I'll save the frustration of looking at the earlier version. Article seems to assert notability and be well-written as a bonus. Benjiboi 09:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete . The article, which was once useful and interesting, has been totally gutted by exclusionists to the point of insignificance.  All of Wikipedia will go this way eventually as the Agents of Order enforce their narrow world view on the entire project until it contracts into an internet black hole, mentioned in passing in geek conversations five years from now as an experiment that failed. Captain Infinity 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment ... I agree in part that the list was trimmed a bit too hastily and thoroughly. Regardless of the outcome of the AfD discussion, would it have been too much to ask to migrate entries chopped en masse to the list's associated Talk page? Should the list continue onward, salvaging fitting entries has become a mess of poorly commented diffs. D. Brodale 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Captain, agreeing on this, wouldn't it be better to keep what we have, even as a stub, than to give up altogether. i suspect most of the material will be able to be re-added properly sourced. perhaps you really mean keep and gradually restore. DGG (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Changing my opinion to Keep per The Transhumanist and Restore per DGG. Captain Infinity 16:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, most diseases currently have articles on them, therefore creating a list of them seems entirely appropriate. Those who wish to delete this list should consider nominating separate articles on fictional diseases for deletion. Max S em 06:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.