Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wheelchair users


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

List of wheelchair users

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The fact that someone uses a wheelchair or not is not notable. The list is entirely unreferenced and hence has implications for WP:BLP. Polyamorph (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This list would, if usefully complete, be unworkably huge. If of workable size, then it would omit far too many to have value.
 * "Notable people in wheelchairs" isn't a good basis for a list. "People in wheelchairs where their use of wheelchairs is in some way notable" would be much better. We don't require individual list entries to be notable (a big justification for list articles, and I don't know of this differing for BLPs either). However we should require the individual's wheelchair use, or at least their impairment, to be significant. I would expect disability rights advocates to meet this, but many otherwise notable people to not do so.
 * I'm not concerned about sourcing and WP:BLP - whilst important, that's an editing issue, not cause for deletion.
 * I am however concerned about Dirk Bogarde and similar. Many, many people spend their last year or so in a wheelchair, after strokes and the like. This doesn't make them particularly notable as wheelchair users. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Change into a category As an article it will get too long and filled with non-notable people. Whoever, I think it will be useful as a category. JDDJS (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Categories, lists, and navigation templates makes it clear that Lists and Categories are not mutually exclusive, and can co-exist. WP:LISTPEOPLE contains the requirement (not always followed) that people in a list must meet WP notability requirements ... so the fact that this list contains some non-notable people is not, alone, a reason to delete it. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Being in a wheelchair is generally a superficial symptom of an underlying cause: perhaps it would be better if the person were in a list based on the underlying cause.  For example, Steven Hawking is in Category:People with motor neurone disease.   WP already has several lists on particular physical characteristics, such as:  List of people with multiple sclerosis, List of people with autism spectrum disorders, List of breast cancer patients by survival status, List of people with bipolar disorder. (Note:  I am in no way suggesting that being in a wheelchair is a disease or impediment: I'm simply naming some other WP lists that are based on physical status).    I suggest that the list be deleted, and the people in it should be placed in Lists or Categories that represent any underlying status.  --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as being too indiscriminate, lacking any rationale for why 'being in a wheelchair' is notable itself, and for a lack of proper criteria on inclusion (what about people who used a a wheelchair for 6 months? etc.). And yes, full of BLP concerns.  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete along with List of bicycle users, List of contact lens wearers and List of people who wear hats. Oh, we don't have those, so just this one to delete then.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete From the time I first saw it this article annoyed me because of its imprecise name. Any attempt to make the name more accurate will be very difficult to resolve, as hinted at above. This is NOT the best way to highlight that a lot of people use wheelchairs. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just another list of random stuff. As someone with a personal interest in disability rights (I am in fact a wheelchair user) "I have a dream" that someday the fact that someone uses a wheelchair would be completely unremarkable. Roger (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a tough one. Being in a wheelchair is a definable characteristic, and some people are known primarily as being in a wheelchair. How many wheelchair-users have biographies on Wikipedia? If the number was small and significant enough, then I could see this being functional at least as a category. But if the number is too large to be wieldy, then we shouldn't have an article or a category, per some of the responses above.  Them From  Space  20:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please could you provide examples for people who are known primarily for as being in a wheelchair? Because I'm not convinced that statement is true, there are so many people that use wheelchairs, if it was notable then the old lady down the street that has to use one because of their stroke deserves an article. I know there are some people who may not have achieved what they achieved without being disabled (paralympians for example) but no one who's notability is defined solely by their wheelchair use.Polyamorph (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the statement: "Being in a wheelchair is a definable characteristic" - definable does not equal "worthy of making a list on WP about it". If that was the case we should immediately start making lists of people who wear spectactles or have red hair or big boobs or... Roger (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Hawking is not primarily known for being in a wheelchair. but his use of one is discussed very extensively in all works about him, and is one of his distinctive characteristics. Ditto for Franklin Roosevelt. There is no need for it to be the primary feature of notability, just an important one relating to their notability  as discussed in sources. To pick one of thousands of examples, Canadian artists, for =example, are known primarily for being artists, not for being in Canada.  If sources discuss it in a significant way, it's sufficient. Two is enough to start a list.(and a category, but a list can give identification).   Now, here's some proof that it's a distinctive characteristic: Think of a famous person in a wheelchair. Do you think of any particular person?  Probably you do. They're the ones who belong on the list. As for referencing,   there are, for example,  books about FDR & this topic exactly: first one I found is (Davis W Houck; Amos Kiewe, FDR's body politics : the rhetoric of disability,  Texas A & M University Press, ©2003.   DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 24 September 2011 (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.