Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention deficit 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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with attention deficit disorder[edit]

Indiscriminate, hard to verify list, of little value. Also delete List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder which is just a redirect to the subject of this AfD. Peyna 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous AfDs on 21 January 2006 and 8 August 2005, both of which resulted in a delete. Relevant talk page for the redirect above can be found here. Peyna 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to verify. I don't know if a verified list would be of little value, but in its current state, it is a liability more than anything else. Schutz 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Unverifiable, and a libel suit waiting to happen. --Aaron 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at all those marked "citation needed"... more like, "citation will never be found." Clear liability per Schutz. --Kinu 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no theoretical reason why a list on this subject can not be done correctly. I prod tagged it because I was hoping it could be steered in the right direction. Given the amount of activity that was immediately generated, I think the process was underway and should be given time. -- JJay 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schutz. Forbsey 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize biographers can identify sources in each biography and include or not as appropriate, assuming that ADD is a meaningful way of categorizing people (For now, given every other disease or mode of death has a list, I'll assume it is). Carlossuarez46 01:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron. Adrian Lamo ·· 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can be verified, but difficult to do so for most of the people who could probably be included. The list itself stretches the definition of "encyclopedic". Schutz and Aaron are definitely correct in that it poses libel issues. At the very least, no name should ever appear without a source, even if the list is kept. -- Jonel | Speak 03:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schutz Avi 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Aaron. Essexmutant 10:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, possible legal infringements, and a list created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Also possibly A6 speedy. Stifle 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many lists, too little time. Elfguy 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the original list was well-explained as speculative, but we have already been through the Afd process. Vaoverland 18:52, 9 February 2006 (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.