Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mentally ill monarchs


 * 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 no consensus for deletion. Further discussion on possible title changes and references should be on the Talk page for the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of mentally ill monarchs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Do we really need more lists? There really is no way to judge whether a person from antiquity was mentally ill or not. It's the sort of thing that keeps scholars debating for decades. This list is basically going to become "List of monarchs that have been accused of being mentally ill." eaolson 23:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - zero sources, dubious merit, dubious validity. --Haemo 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, If it had sources I would keep it . Keep, change it to Rulers and add presidents and dictators.Callelinea 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I agree. There must be a way to easily find leaders labeled as 'crazy'. But then, we could create a category instead. However, I don't see anything wrong with this list so far. --Loukinho 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The disclaimer about who was actually mentally ill in the article says delete to me. It lacks validity from that point and becomes relatively useless. --Stormbay 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, as these people are not usually connectioned because they were thought of as mentally ill. Z1720 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cf. List of premature obituaries, a featured list. Slac speak up! 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment What's wrong with the "list of monarchs that have been accused of being mentally ill" idea? Of course we're never going to know definitively which monarchs were ill or not. We can recount what chroniclers have described them as - that's all we can ever do anywhere in Wikipedia. I'm sorry, "we can't be definitive" is not a valid reason for deletion. If you want sources, fine, I'll footnote each individual entry, but given the article has existed for all of 9 hours I think we might be getting a bit over-zealous in this regard. None of the reasons recounted thus far are convincing. Slac speak up! 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry, Delete Nothing wrong with the idea. I was prepared to like this list, but it's not much more than a set of nine blue-links and a "this-is-a-stub-have-fun-adding-to-it" invitation.  Not only that, it's more of a list of people whom some historians have labelled as "geez, they must have been crazy".  Finally, considering the prime ministers and presidents who were removed and sent to a hospital for mental illness, why confine a list to kings and queens.  Though I have to admit, "Mentally-ill Monarchs" would be a cool name for a band. Mandsford 00:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- Bduke 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Mad King Ludwig" was called mad by his contemporaries at least in part because he was homosexual, and at least two others on this list were considered mad because of gossip spread 100 years or more after their deaths. Are gossip and invective reliable sources? I don't think so. -- Charlene  00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a reliable source for what someone was called - ie. historically verifiable opinions. That's what we're aiming for, remember? Not The Truth(TM). The objections still boil down to "there aren't enough sources" - a view that would hold a lot more validity if, say, this was a few months old. Slac speak up! 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. So you concede that this isn't about people who were actually mentally ill, but just those that have been described as such at some point or another? You're going to have to add Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to the list. eaolson 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 'cept they're not monarchs. And I didn't "concede" it, I started the article with that premise in mind. Slac speak up! 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and replace with a category Corpx 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: While moderately interesting, I don't believe that this really serves any purpose whatsoever. Any accusations of mental illness could be placed in the article itself (or confirmations) in it's own section, and the list can be (as so cleverly suggested by Corpx) turned into a category. This article is not necessary... at all. --HAL2008 talk Contributions 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but add sources and further explain notability, i.e. for people like Caligula who have been the subject of films. Show that the list has relevance to popular culture and/or societal change.  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What about mentally ill people who believe they are monarchs? ~ Infrangible 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think. Actually this list is somewhat useful. I realize that I am treading very close to WP:ILIKEIT, but this is a subject of great interest to historians and there has been much debate about these people for many years. Perhaps the title could be changed, as others above have pointed out above, but I think the idea of the list is sound. We do need documentation and sources, however. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Locate sources; it's a valid topic. And "Do we really need any more lists?" is such a bogus statement. --Hemlock Martinis 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite a valid topic, go get sources. I'm tempted to ask "Do we really need fewer lists?" -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this information would only belong in the monarch's article, or in a category Giggy  UCP 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, consider renaming. Valid topic for which plentiful sources could, and should, be found. Needs expanding, possibly incorporating other heads of state. Brief notes could also be added to enhance the usefulness compared with a category. I would support renaming to clarify the inclusion criterion. Espresso Addict 00:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Wryspy 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, you do know the person above you voted keep. Right? -MrFizyx 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly create a category as per Corpx, DanMS, Hal2008, and nom. Bearian 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep  Some of the monarchs with a historical reputation for madness are  linked  by heredity.  For example, Henry VI of England was the grandson of Charles VI of  France.  So this not just a list of unrelated monarchs.  As for references, they can be added ( I added one.)Cardamon
 * Strong delete - not a valid topic. This is absolutely unverifiable, because it cannot possibly be known which monarchs were "mentally ill". That can't be found out anymore.  Sala Skan  22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Salaskan - I have two replies.
 * 1) As others have already pointed out, the name of the page should be changed to something like Monarchs thought to be mad by their chroniclers or Monarchs with a historical reputation for mental illness, which is   verifiable.
 * 2) Some physical evidence may exist for more recent monarchs such as George III. Cardamon 09:44, 15 July 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.