Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder (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 Keep, rename.. Navou ^banter 22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder[edit]

Unless they have a similar category for other non-mental illnesses then the existence of the article in itself shows prejudice.

This page is preposterous. It borders on slander, in addition to which few, if any, of the individuals, living or dead, can be clinically verified as having been diagnosed BiP DashaKat 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove entries from the list which are unreferenced (especially unreferenced living persons) and entries of living persons who have not themselves been open to the public about possibly having bipolar disorder. Q0 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to keep this list unsourced/nonsense free but still agree with nomination. If only for the name "believed to have been". Garion96 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Believe to have been affected"? That is not an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps there could be a list of people who have been medically confirmed to have this disorder, but "believe to have been affected" seem in-discriminant and encyclopedic. BLP issues are bound to occur regularly. Until (1 == 2) 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and consider renaming. Many of the entries in there are from people who have openly admitted to having bipolar disorder. Others are from reliably sourced publications, and the article explains the use and criteria of those sources at the top. The title phrase "believed to have been" is causing the confusion. The Touched with Fire list includes a lot of long-dead famous people who were never formally diagnosed, but that was probably in the days when there was no such diagnosis as bipolar disorder. The NAMI list relies on biographies by others. At a minimum, a list could be generated from people who have openly admitted to having bipolar disorder -- there won't be any WP:BLP issues there. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and rename per Elkman. Restrict the list to individuals who have been medically confirmed to have, and/or those who openly acknowledge having, the condition.--JayJasper 15:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure listcruft, unmanageable. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and consider renaming. Many of the names on this list are diagnosed individuals.
Keep, but needs definite rename, and cleanup--Jac16888 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup & rename. If a historic figure has been written about by a reputable source and that source can be named, it should be ok to mention it here. Random speculation does not belong, however. I find this list and the vignettes to be fascinating. --Andy 09:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all previous reasons. Too much speculation, not sure the article really adds anything. I think it's more beneficial to focus on individuals who certainly have bipolar disorder. --Midnightdreary 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and consider renaming - There is considerable encyclopaedic merit to having this article. Keeping it encyclopaedic will continue to be a challenge, but that's not a reason for deletion. For the most part it is thoroughly sourced, this could be an example on how to write about potentially tricky issues relating to living people if the proper pruning is done. I think we can now dispense with the Touched with Fire persons, as that was always shaky. The title is vague, but do we have the confidence (and will to considerably shorten the list as would be necessary) to move to List of people affected by bipolar disorder? LukeSurl^{t c} 21:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.