Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people speculated to have been syphilitic (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete per WP:SNOW. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

List of people speculated to have been syphilitic

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

An article listing people who may or may not have had syphilis. Was nominated previously in March 2006. Previous keep editors were commenting on a well-sourced article, but it has only two book references as its only source of information. In no way meets WP:V and reads like WP:OR. One cannot have an article based on supposition and if any of the persons were alive it certainly wouldn't meet WP:BLP and would be considered defamatory. A large percentage of the articles for those listed do not mention syphilis and one can suspect that some of them are not entirely honestly motivated, such as Charles Darwin and Stalin. I suggest that any proven cases be added to the individual articles if not already and the article be deleted and/or create a category for this list if necessary. Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - all things considered, we should at least delete the unsourced bits. Rklawton 23:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - aside from the sourcing and potential BLP/BDP issues, what concerns me greatly is the discussion which goes on at the talk page, where editors seem to dicuss the inclusion of certain figures by debate, in most cases without reliable, verifiable sources. This freaks me out (to be honest) and smells of original research en masse.  Mart inp23  23:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The title alone states the reason, speculate (as in no proof, just rumors). TJ Spyke 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If it is speculative, and looking at the names included it is indeed highly speculative, to the point where it would generate multiple lawsuits were the alleged victims still alive, then by definition it is WP:OR and non-encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aside from WP:LIST, speculative data of this sort is best served elsewhere - such as /dev/null. --Dennisthe2 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculative?!? Oy, this needs to go. Also, it appears the whole point of the list is to promote someone's book making the claims -- which near as I can tell IS the whole source. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per title. JuJube 02:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom. Have to agree with TJ Spyke about its title word, speculated, and the discussion on the talkpage Martinp23 cites. Is it time for WP:SNOW? Ronbo76 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete; how was this page not speedied a long time ago? --Quuxplusone 02:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator and User:Martinp23. James086 Talk 03:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (per WP:NOT) - even if true, this would probably be the only thing most of the people had in common, and many other (non-notable) people would have had syphilis that are not in this list. Orderinchaos78 04:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Speculation? That's hardly encyclopaedic when unsourced, for this to be kept would set a precedence: shall we make an article for all people speculated to have rheumatoid arthritis? -- Greaser 08:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nominator. Unsourced lists are the bane of Wikipedia IMO, not very subtle POV pushing to include undocumented and speculative additions to the list. --Eqdoktor 08:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Speculated!!, by whom? The only way this list could be populated is by speculation, WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:V violations.   SkierRMH , 09:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 09:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Mardavich 09:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete ...although we'd be missing out on some hilarious vandalism if deleted. .V. (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Moncrief 18:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this seems more to be been discussing and promoting a book. Anyway, historical diagnosis is interesting, but this list is largely unverified.-- danntm T C 20:47, 13 January 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.