Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 01:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder
Too speculative and Possiblly Libelous. Should be removed ASAP. Nick Catalano 01:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Ejrrjs | What? 01:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete this list cannot be verified in any way (except for the living people on record as bipolar), so it really doesn't belong in wikipedia --nixie 02:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Possiblly libelous Longhair 02:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure this was on VfD before. Anyone remember? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no record of vfd on the talk page, there have been similar lists up for vfd recently, like the list of republican celebrities etc --nixie 03:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, because it may cause problems. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless, prior to expiration of VfD, a) sources are provided for at least twenty people on the list, and b) no more than ten of those sources are from or closely connected to Kay Redfield Jamison's book Touched with Fire, and c) all names for which no sources are provided are moved to the article's talk page and not placed in the article until a source is provided. I think this page is a currently a mixture of rumor, speculation, and Jamison. Jamison's book is fascinating, respectable and credible, but speculative. We should acknowledge it as the source whenever it is the source, and we shouldn't base an article solely on her work. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete All the reasons above, and it has no encyclopedic value. --DaveTheRed 03:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and then undergo a verification proccess. Just a comment, though: because it may cause problems doesn't seem like an awfully good reason to remove something from an encyclopedia. For all we know, bread might cause problems with people who dislike it. --Sn0wflake 03:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Dammit, on a topic as sensitive as this, this should be verify first. No entries should have ever gone onto this list without a verifiable source. Given that the list was created in July 2004 and has been slowly and continuously edited since then, I don't think it matters if it hangs around for another week or so, but the outcome of this VfD should be something that ensures that any "highly speculative and inaccurate" entries will be removed from the main namespace reasonably quickly. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Gee, I can't recollect any bread suits, but I can certainly remember a lot of libel suits over false and/or reckless charges of mental illness. --Calton 04:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I once tried on a breadsuit and, man, was it a bad idea. Surprised I got out of the park alive. Anyway, delete this list. Any list that readily admits it's bullshit does not belong here. -R. fiend 04:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is a highly speculative and inaccurate list? People believed to have been affected? This is a reckless list atht should be deleted ASAP. --Calton 04:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, non-encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk)  04:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Kaibabsquirrel 06:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but if we must keep this article (which isn't likely right now), I strongly suggest we keep living or recently living people off. Just think of how much this would offend them, or their families. Plus there are some serious libel issues. Szyslak 06:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Believed"???. If someone has not been diagnozed with the BPD or admitted that they have it, everything is speculation and potentially derogatory. Delete - Skysmith 11:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --BM 14:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just made a bold and ruthless edit. The previous version of the article, which is the subject of the discussion above the line, is this revision. I have moved the unsourced entries to the Talk page. Since currently all of the entries are unsourced, that means all the entries. I have changed the lead sentence which formerly read "Here is a highly speculative and inaccurate list" to read "This is a list of people who have been cited by a credible source as probably having bipolar disorder. Each entry is accompanied by the source." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip rag, and even a celebrity gossip rag would find itself slapped with a libel suit if they accused someone of having bipolar disorder without any proof. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 15:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons listed above. &mdash; RJH 17:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment On the main bipolar disorder page is a link to a list of famous persons with mental disorders from the national alliance for the mentally ill. It contains about 20 names which I will transfer to this list in the next few minutes. LukeSurl 18:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the page now is worthy of a keep LukeSurl 19:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've consulted a second source, namely [bipolarworld.net. I belive this gives the list extra validity. However, due to the nature of Bipolar disorder it is inevitable that this list is going to be questionable, therefore I have added in the article an admission of this:

"The nature of the condition means it is near impossible to obtain an definative list of bipolar persons, hence this is a list of those that are believed to be so. The fact that it contains many artistic geniuses can be interpreted in two ways, either that bipolar disorder occurs fequently in artistic geniuses or that people frequently associate mental disorder with genius in error, not understanding the nature of the gift."

I believe the list can be interpreted as a mirror on popular perception of bipolar disorder and not necessarily a definative list and such warrent its ambiguous title.

Furthermore I have excluded any living persons from the list to avoid controversy LukeSurl 20:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the sources, it should still be deleted. I just looked at the pages referenced from which appear equally "highly speculative and inaccurate". For one reason or other most mental health pressure groups appear to collect spuriously referenced lists of highly speculative nature of famous people suffering their particular illness/condition. Probably worth an article...Beethoven turns up on every such list, whether autistic/ asperger, bipolar whatever, probably he was just an alcoholic, Schumann suffered from tertiary syphilis and not BPI(as per reference provided, etc, Again, please delete asap.Refdoc 20:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, these lists are collected by those with a vested interest but doesn't that increase this articles validity on how Bipolar disorder is percieved? Perhaps the page could be moved to List of people claimed to have been affected by bipolar disorder with a brief discussion on the bias of said organisations?LukeSurl 21:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, bipolarity and alcholism or syphillus are not mutually exclusive. Biopolarity, switching from depression to manic may be a cause, or an effect of alcholism, Schumann's syphillus may have caused a bipolar nature. "Bipolar disorder" was previously called "manic depression", and is therefore much easier to speculate on than first appears. For a person to have Bipolar II disorder requires only one major depressive episode in their lives. This is possible to determine with reasonable accuracy from historical records. Yes, if this is to be closer to a definate list then it should be reviewed on a case by case basis, but not deleted. LukeSurl 22:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is possible to determine with reasonable accuracy from historical records This is wrong. While the criteria are laid out in stuff like ICD 10] ]and [[DSM IV, any such diagnosis requires huge medical skills, is often in doubt for a long time and may need to be revised at some stage. To make such a diagnosis form review of incomplete biographical data is presumptoous to say the least.Refdoc 00:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, it could be perfectly encyclopedic to say "Byron was profiled as a probable manic-depressive by Kay Redfield Jamison." It all depends on whether you think Kay Redfield Jamison's views rise to the level of encyclopedic authority. We shouldn't present our personal speculation as fact, but it's perfectly reasonable to present well-sourced, authoritative speculation as long as we identify the source and led the reader assess credibility. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just thought of one person who certainly can go on the list! Dpbsmith (talk) 01:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, as long as it lists only the people who, have admitted to having BD, such as Adam Ant or Vivien Leigh for example, and keeps out the more speculative ones. G-Man 00:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as quickly as possible. This is grotesquely offensive, both to those on the list and to those who actually suffer from bipolar disorder. Non-encyclopedic, possibly grounds for libel. DocSigma 04:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) I didn't even notice the massive edits that have been done. When I first saw this list, it was completely unsubstantiated (which is why I found it offensive). I change my vote to Keep. DocSigma 04:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is false. It is not offensive to those who suffer from bipolar disorder. The sources for the current version of the article are all people with bipolar disorder (Jamison, the members of NAMI, the participants at bipolarworld.net). I have bipolar disorder, and I love lists of famous people with bipolar disorder. I'm sure that somebody with bipolar disorder is offended by such lists, but they don't speak for me! -- Toby Bartels 00:01, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm another bipolar Wikipedian who is not offended by this list. -- Karada 11:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would like to see the opinion of a specialist on this article. After the cleanup, the issue seems to be merely whether or not the list is speculative. I'm no psychiatrist, but one or two books I've read by very notable authorities on this field gave me the impression it is not really considered speculation to produce a diagnosis based only on historical data, or even in fictional material. By the way, Ben Stiller is still listed with no indication of source. vlad_mv 01:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not very happy with the "cleanup." The so-called sources are web pages which themselves are very poorly sourced. The NAMI list is simply a list of people with "mental illness." The current page includes Faulkner, gives BPW as the source, but notes that Faulkner was "alcoholic." The BPW does list him as "bipolar" but really presents no evidence or sources at all. Being alcoholic and being bipolar are not the same thing! Dpbsmith (talk) 03:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added "TWF" initials to all persons listed in "Touched with fire" as well as a few links to relavent biographies of a few individual persons. Kay Redfield Jamison includes many more persons on her list but I decided not to add any more names. I've also got a quote from Ben Stiller himself who is very open about his condition, making him the only living person on the list. LukeSurl 16:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The only living person besides Jamison herself, that is. She's still alive AFAIK. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's perfectly without the mandate of an NPOV encyclopaedia to report that a famous person is commonly believed, or credibly cited, to have a particular medical condition. This goes for deceased persons as well, as long as we make it clear that the diagnosis is merely an estimate based on historical material. Everything should be sourced; random contributor's personal speculations are not verifiable. The current article meets these requirements. -- Toby Bartels 00:01, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Darwinek 10:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but tighten up on citing of source material: and yes, I believe Jamison to be a good source. As an aside, I wonder how many bipolar Wikipedians there are? With bipolar disorder affecting 0.1%-1% of the population (depending on your definition), there must be quite a few. -- Karada 11:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm one! I was offended by the list back when it was unsubstantiated, but no longer am. DocSigma 04:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Zarkov 21:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Drw25 00:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.