Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with epilepsy


 * 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 snowball keep - non admin closure by Giggy  Talk 05:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated in a group, but consensus was to break the group apart and list individually. See Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers (2nd nomination). Abstain. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 06:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Note on the procedural nomination. This article was listed in the original nominator’s group deletion (see above), but the nominator did not place an AFD tag on the article, nor did he create the discussion page (this page). I placed the AFD banner on the article and created this page because this article was on the nominator’s list. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 16:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, this has everything sourced via reliable 3rd parties and is a featured article too! Are you sure you've nominated the correct article? Lugnuts 08:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you cite WP:SNOW after just 1 "vote" ? Corpx 08:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, because it's not got a snowball's chance of being AFD'd... Lugnuts 09:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Featured list, well sourced, critera well defined, notable concept, and well written to boot!  Let's keep the snowball rollin'!  Someguy1221 09:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep of course (main editor). I know such lists are controversial on WP and may produce a IDONTLIKEIT reaction. So I thought someone might try to AfD it at some point (like hepatitis C). But to be lumped in with eight other unrelated lists like "List of horror film killers"! Why not just put "List of *" into one big AfD and suggest a category instead? OK... to the point...
 * The original AfD said:
 * how do you decide what goes in List of people with epilepsy? By its very name, it could contain almost everyone, and would become too long and manageable. On the other hand, it could be turned into a category. David Fuchs
 * This is a list of notable individuals only, not all 50 million affected people in the world. The word "notable" can't be used in the title, per List naming conventions policy. I've now added the word to the lead to make it obvious. This list is almost a textbook example of where a category is inferior. See Categories and Categorization of people for reasons. Please read the whole list, not just the first section.
 * Related lists include ones on brain tumor patients, HIV-positive people and polio survivors. All are featured lists, the last was featured only last week. There's enough support for such lists, when done sensitively. Colin°Talk 09:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but how is this not a list of loosely associated people? (WP:NOT)) The only common trait the people on this list have is that they all had a disease.    What is this list trying to prove?  That notable people can also catch the disease, just like the common folk?   The list is extremely well referenced and I commend the people who worked on it, but grouping people based on a disease they contracted is a loosely associated list to me.   I think lists of loose inclusion criteria like this should be replaced with a category Corpx 09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the key idea distinguishing this from a list of "loosely associated" topics is that having epilepsy can be (and in some cases certainly is) noteworthy.  Someguy1221 10:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have three counter-arguments to the "loosely associated" challenge. Firstly, epilepsy is not just "a disease" like chicken pox. It is a chronic condition, classed as a disability, and prior to the 20th century was effectively untreatable and subject to great stigma. For many of these people, epilepsy has totally shaped their lives (career, marriage, faith). Secondly, the study of possible epilepsy in historical figures has fascinated medical historians, doctors and scientists for centuries. Books and numerous scientific papers have been written on the subject. The link with religiosity is a frequent subject of books, articles, TV programs, etc. Finally, the list is a source of useful information for journalists, activists, parents, and charities. All the major epilepsy charities maintain their own such lists. Name-dropping at the beginning of a talk is a common technique to engage one's audience. Therefore, I believe this is an encyclopaedic topic worthy of study and note.
 * A category would be inferior as it could only include those with a definite diagnosis (see Categorization of people) and may run into WP:BLP problems. It would, of course, lack the additional info with each list entry. It would be devoid of all of the latter two thirds, which concentrates on historical, religious and misdiagnosis. This latter section is particularly important IMO. I mean, how do you discuss entries such as St. Paul or Muhammad in a category? Colin°Talk 15:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Corpx, what you're missing is that this list is not, and was never meant as, a standalone article; it was split off from Epilepsy because it became too long and because enough issues cropped up with regard to the content to warrant its own talk page.  It is still linked from Epilepsy as a subsection.  See below for a more detailed explanation of how this came about.  - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 07:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just not at all comfortable with "List of people with " on wikipedia.  This is would just open up the door for lists of people with any kind of life changing experience.   I dont see how a category can run into WP:BLP issues.  After all, we have Category:Living People instead of List of Living People.   This link says that 1 in 56 Texans (my state) have epilepsy.   Based on those numbers, I would say its not a very uncommon disease and makes the list even more "loose" as such a large number of people share the trait.   Corpx 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Corpx, are you arguing that the article's content should be folded back into Epilepsy?  Or that the current article should be renamed, maybe to People with epilepsy?  Or that the article's content should be deleted from wikipedia entirely?  Or a fourth alternative?  - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, it would make no sense for many diseases and if this list was in danger of becoming unmanageably long then it would be unsuitable as a list. There are only 78 names in the "certain diagnosis" section. It isn't as common as that link suggests (indeed the linked-to article is entitled "Epilepsy Rate Among Texas Adults Unexpectedly High"). The usual range is 5-10 cases per 1000 persons (The incidence and prevalence of epilepsy). However, epilepsy is disproportionately overrepresented among the very young, the very old and those with intellectual and behavioural disabilities. The prevalence among those likely to achieve notability on Wikipedia is much, much lower. Coupled with stigma and the fact that many people these days have their seizures controlled effectively with medication (and so can keep it hidden), it will be seriously under-reported. This is a more comprehensive list than you will find anywhere else (and there are many such lists in webland), and yet only has 78 definite names.
 * The BLP issue arises because epilepsy still carries a stigma (for example many people think it is a mental illness) and can affect someone's employment prospects (though legislation is supposed to prevent this). Claiming that so-and-so has epilepsy on a #1 Google site requires great care. The guidelines on categories explicitly warn of these dangers when using them for sensitive subjects. They are fine for Category:British doctors, and other uncontested and easy to justify sets. I taken the BLP concerns so seriously, I performed an audit of the sources. Colin°Talk 09:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To all Keep and especially RandomCritic above: I don't care if its FA or its got a billion sources, that doesn't mean it has any greater right to not be deleted. I'm not arguing wehter its sourced: I'm saying it seems to be flying in the face of WP:NOT. Come on then, its a list of people with epilepsy. Now, couldn't that just be made into a category, Category:Persons with Epilepsy, or whatnot? Why do we need a list which if we look at it literally could include millions of people. Not only that, it could fall under listcrufty parameters. If this were an article about Epileptic people with something like critical commentary not associated with labeling people as epileptic or no, then I wouldn't be here. David Fuchs( talk ) 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Corpx.millions of others with the same disease there biography can mention it but no separate article . Harlowraman 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Realise that this needed to be nominated after group nom was split up, but there is no way this should be deleted. The bounds for inclusion are clear, the article is well cited, etc. Recurring dreams 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As much as I generally dislike this kind of list, I'll admit this one is well written and sourced. However, it says itself that modern scientists doubt there is any link between epilepsy and genius, although it was a popular theory for centuries. I'd be more happy with a title such as Link between epilepsy and genius. That kind of article could confront the pros and the cons of the theory, with a shorter list of famous epileptics as an illustration. In any case, the contents of the current article are acceptable. --Targeman 11:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. List is well sourced, and has fairly well defined criteria for inclusion.  Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been identified as a featured list, at Featured list candidates/List of people with epilepsy.  I'm surprised that it would be a featured list to one group of people but deletion-worthy to another group of people.  I think we need a little more individual review for each of these lists that pops up, rather than an overall view of, "We don't need indiscriminate lists on Wikipedia," or, "Wikipedia should be a source of all information."  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A category cannot substitute the information that is given in this list.  T Rex  | talk  19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because it's totally valid. Also: really poor form to nominate a featured list for deletion as that's a giant slap in the face to the FL community. --JayHenry 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep-this is featured for crying out loud. To be honest, I'm pretty much sure I'd oppose the deletion of any featured content. By being featured, its been proven that community consensus is that this page represents the best Wikipedia has to offer. Under those circumstances, deletion would require a really convincing reasoning, and I'm not seeing that here.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have a deletionmania problem: things get nominated that never should have come up to AfD, for no other reason than that a word (like "list" or "popular") in the title bugs someone. Just being a list is not a sufficient criterion for deletion, but apparently it is being treated that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RandomCritic (talk • contribs).
 * further note: there have been many, many AfD on similar list-type articles: see Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese books by title or Articles for deletion/List of black rock musicians. Not as well cited, but it doesn't change their notability. David Fuchs( talk ) 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps commenter should take the response as an indication that s/he may not properly understand the meaning of the word "indiscriminate". RandomCritic 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * David, please read my responses above. A category already exists; it is (and is required to be) inferior. For the living persons it has serious potential WP:BLP concerns. For the historical people, it is totally unsuitable as there will be doubt about the categorisation that must be discussed. More than half of this list discusses retrospective (i.e. doubtful) and incorrect (but v. widely reported) cases. If you read up on categories, you'll see the guidelines say "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." They also say "Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization."
 * Sure, similar arguments appear time and again on AfD. Other than that, this list has no similarity to Portuguese books, horror film killers, etc. Please keep the discussion focussed on this AfD and not other stuff.
 * Ultimately, rather than WikiLawyering, could you ask yourself if Wikipedia is better of with List of people with epilepsy replaced by Category:People with epilepsy. The answer is so obviously no; its Featured List status should tell you that. Colin°Talk 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep- Are you kidding me? There is no way a category could ever come close to substituting the encyclopedic, sourced and verifiable information here, nor is a category approach appropriate for living persons. Categories can't have caveats.--DO11.10 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I want to explain exactly why I created this article, and how it came to be the way it is, for the purpose of informing this debate.  The article came about as a split from epilepsy; it was originally a subsection of that article.  There were two problems with this subsection:  it was too long, and it was difficult to maintain.  In particular, there are a number of people to whom the diagnosis of epilepsy has been attributed on very thin historical evidence; including some of these people (Mohammed, in particular) on the list both violated WP:V and, because of stigma, could be construed as offensive to certain people or groups.
 * I first argued that the list should be removed from the article entirely. However, when this was tried it rapidly became clear that many users of the epilepsy article consider this topic to be a pertinent part of a discussion of epilepsy and that if the list were not present, it would rapidly be re-created by any number of well-intentioned editors.  I therefore split the list off as List of famous people with epilepsy.  When it was pointed out that Wikipedia inclusion guidelines made "famous" redundant - only notable people would be included - the list was moved to its current name.
 * The next step was a vigorous debate about criteria for inclusion on the list; most of this debate can be seen on the article's talk page. Specifically, how certain does the diagnosis have to be to qualify for inclusion on the list?  The vigor and focus of this debate had not been possible on Talk:Epilepsy, where it was scattered among other topics.  The current article is heavily and appropriately sourced and referenced; for anyone researching the topic, it is a gold mine of useful information.
 * To offer my personal perspective as a practicing epileptologist: this article represents the very best of Wikipedia. When I want people to see just how good a job Wikipedia can do, I show them this article; and then I tell them that I was initially opposed to its creation because I thought it would be a useless article.  Many of my colleagues and patients have been impressed, and maybe a few even aided in their professional and personal lives, by this article.  I think for these reasons deleting it would be an error.  If the problem is that "Lists" are considered unencyclopedic, I propose renaming the article to "People with epilepsy" as a subsection of Epilepsy; it is much more than an indiscriminate list. - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 23:49, 30 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.