Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with major depressive disorder

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with major depressive disorder[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP among other issues. I cannot see what use this list is. Why would it be encyclopedic to publish a list of people, both living and dead, with mental disorders? The majority of the list is composed of show business celebrities and sports figures. Many of the people on this list are living. This looks like tabloid fodder. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that the page is utterly distasteful is not a valid reason to remove it: but the fact that it's explicitly vague in its remit ("Some historical personalities are presumed to have had depression"), questionably-sourced and, per nom, inherently prone to breaching BLP guidelines, combined with the fact that it doesn't seem to serve any useful function, are all valid reasons to get rid of it. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disgusting article we should not have. I care nothing for policy based reasons in this case. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have plenty of Category:Lists of people by medical condition and this would seem to be a significant one because of the substantial impact it can have on people's lives. The nominator and commenters above seem to assume that this is inherently negative, or done as an attack page ("distasteful", "tabloid fodder", etc.), but this reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That assumption also seems ironically ignorant of the fact that this information has been increasingly published in reliable sources about notable people (and through self-disclosure by many such subjects) in order to counter the stigma attached to mental health issues. The utility of such a list is in providing examples of those with relevant experiences of the list topic, and that provides readers opportunities to research any further (WP:IJUSTDONTGETIT should fit in WP:ATAIDD somewhere). Every entry is sourced. If there are issues with a particular entry then examine those specifically rather than the WP:VAGUEWAVEs we see above to BLP. You don't get to delete something by throwing out dismissive, drive-by opinions that are clearly less based in actual work, research, and review of the content and cited sources than what the editors have put into it. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I do get to ivote on such a disgusting article. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And your "ivote" will get all the weight it's due. postdlf (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But I can predict the future. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is implying a diagnosis in most cases. Looking at the (impressively compiled) references I see personal anecdotes about depression as well as bipolar disorder or anorexia etc., but I could not find one example specifically citing the subject diagnosis of major depressive disorder. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as pretty much everyone gets depressed sometime in their life. Alternatively, trim down to the people who are professionally diagnosed with the disorder. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment here. If it were trimmed down to a verified list of people who were actually diagnosed with the illness ... there is nothing to prevent the "anybody can edit" practice of future edits adding back their favorite subject they personally think was depressed. And then we are back to Square One. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. postdlf (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Astronaut Neil Armstrong made the list for not being a chatty guy before, during, or after the moon landing.
Paul McCartney made the list for claiming to have been depressed about the breakup of the Beatles (same as their fans, I suppose) until wife Linda made him move forward with a new band.
John Lennon made the list, but the source is a searchable book that never mentions the word depression
Director Akira Kurosawa made the list, but the linked source gives no clue why
Princess Diana had post-natal depression after her first childbirth, but somehow managed to get past it

This is just a random celebrity list of names.. Sourcing is often offline, or otherwise dead links. With a lot of, if not all of, the show biz celebrities showing as normal when their career is going good, and in a funk when they are in a career lull. — Maile (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it's very important that, when significant to the life of a person who is notable enough to receive an article here, this is a concept that should be mentioned. However I just don't see how a list like this contributes constructively in any way. I think it is very ripe for (as mentioned above) both people added misleadingly, and also for a list of people to whom this disorder is important (which is likely to be many), but who conversely are either not defined by depression (also likely to be many) or not really that significant to depression the topic. Additionally there is likely to be a massive cultural bias as some cultures are likely to have groups or histories that are open or emphasise this element, whereas other cultures may downplay this element or have a tendency for it not to be disclosed. I cannot get past these points and think it is better just to delete this article for these reasons, and mention depression within the relevant people's biographies.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is modern day "outing" to be honest. If people with depression or PTSD discuss it in open, public manner, then it goes in their article. I understand that we are trying to remove the stigma from mental illness, but this is a personal choice. It's also akin to having an article called People with Psoriasis. Let's be kind! ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These lists by condition are majorly problematic. If it is notable to the person and signicant to them in some way, we can mention it in their article. Lists invite trivial mentioning. Beyond this, classifying mental health issues is notoriously a changing process. I am 39 and I was classed as falling into a mental health category that no longer exists, and I was about 25 when I was so classed. Things get even worse when we start doing retroactive classisifcations of people. If this is significant and defining to the person, put it in an article. Lists like this invite non-significant inclusions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If we must keep this we should limit it to people diagnosed as such during their life time by a competent medical professional. We should ban in post morten diagnosis and anything that is not an actual diagnosis of the condition in question. The fact that even with the page warning we have not had these rules abided by suggests that there is not a reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. a vague subject that violates WP:BLP. Alex-h (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is a magnet for BLP issues. Discuss in context on the subject's article when relevant. (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 9 July 2020 (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.