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. Doncram makes a very persuasive argument for keeping this list that nearly has me convinced. But, unfortunately, the argument didn't convince other !voters in this AfD. As the nom points out, WP:EGRS appears to support the deletion of this list and two previous AfDs on similar topics also resulted in delete, as Squeamish Ossifrange pointed out. The consensus here supports the deletion of this page. v/r - TP 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder[edit]

List of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTDIR, this is an indiscriminate, non-encyclopedic list that cross-categorizes living people with disability, medical, or psychological conditions and "doesn't contribute to the state of human knowledge." Per WP:CATEGRS: "Categories which intersect a job, role, or activity with a disability or medical/psychological condition should only be created if the intersection of those characteristics is relevant to the topic and discussed as a group in reliable sources." Permstrump (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Permstrump (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination talks of an intersection or cross-categorisation. I'm not seeing it. Andrew D. (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is a genuine question, not snark... Why wouldn't a list of people with BLPs on wikipedia who have ADHD, but for most of whom ADHD is WP:NONDEFINING, be considered an intersection? There’s no clear method for determining which people with ADHD should be on this list other than on the whim of an editor. It's an arbitrary list of (semi-)public figures who at one point had something published that mentioned they had ADHD, in most cases, only a passing mention. WP:NOTDIR says, Wikipedia is not “Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics… There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.” Only 1-2 people on this list probably belong there. WP:SALAT says, “some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the ‘list of shades of colors of apple sauce’, be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.” Permstrump (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not an intersection because there's only one classification, not two. It doesn't much matter, in any case. There are plenty of sources out there which list entrepreneurs such as Branson who have ADHD. The association with entrepreneurship is not arbitrary because those sources indicate that such hyperactivity is a strength which helps them get things done. Such coverage satisfies WP:LISTN and so we're good. Note also that we have categories such as Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and so WP:CLN applies. Andrew D. (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think that Howie Mandel's openness about ADD and others' is usefully listed together, and is part of de-stigmatizing the condition and/or encouraging those with it. As long as members of the list have a substantial association such as speaking out about it, I think it's fine (and criteria for inclusion are to be refined at Talk page, not AFD). Some preface to the list, along those lines, like there is for List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people would be good to add, but again that is not for AFD. --doncram 18:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Howie Mandel and Michael Phelps are the only names on the list who have substantial association speaking about (or having their mom speak about) their history with ADHD. If we limit the list to people with a substantial association with ADHD, it becomes very, very, short. As it stands, this list is basically the opposite of de-stigmatizing as it outs BLPs for having ADHD that are not known for having it and have not consented to its disclosure (and the source of the diagnosis for the majority of people is dubious). Permstrump (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite so, the 2012 Fox News source "Celebrities with ADHD" covers 4 included so far and 3 more to be added probably, who are like spokespersons on the topic. That one source establishes notability of the group as a list topic so well that this AFD should be closed "keep" already IMHO, though discussion of membership criteria is useful (and should be continued at article's Talk page if/when this is closed "keep". doncram 20:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure how or if I'll !vote here, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders was deleted for BLP problems just a few weeks ago. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing to that, Doug Weller, and thanks also to Permstrump for concerns. I delved into one case on the list, Channing Tatum, and see in source cited in BLP that he said he "was put on Ritalin" and something else, far from supporting assertion in BLP that he had ADHD and struggled in school from that. I don't see clarity of medical diagnosis at all, nor self-identification. (I suspect there may well be some biased editing that went on to beef up the category of persons with ADHD). The autism spectrum disorders list sounds like it was badly defined (or not defined), allowing unproven assertions about a difficult-to-define condition.
  • In contrast the Talk page of the list of gay, lesbian, bisexual persons shows that it is managed far better. It is limited to persons where good references show they self-identify as one of those is required. Editor Bearcat and others are doing great job it appears. This must be managed similarly. A very good effect of having this list will be focus upon quality of BLP assertions and categories in BLP articles. For example I believe the Channing Tatum article must have the assertions removed and he should be dropped here. Also the GLB list states up front it is to include only famous people, which should be copied here.
  • It is fine for this to be reduced to a short list, even just two persons immediately, for now, is my opinion. Let's do this one right and avoid apparently unfortunate management of autism spectrum list and equally bad decision (imho) to delete it, leaving unscrutinized info in BLPs. I am interested in helping manage this one. It's topic is better defined than "on a spectrum" (to be flip, everyone is on that spectrum, literally, even those at 0 and at .00001 out of 10, say). With self-identification and/or perhaps some overwhelmingly strong evidence of other significant association, where ADHD is actually a defining characteristic of a person, then I think this is worthwhile, useful, interesting, valid, can be well-sourced, etc. What may be interesting may be how few ADHDers are "out", but I am sure there are a lot more than two! (Though less than 47, the current size of its category. All to be examined.) doncram 08:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some good points, Doncram. This is where I still see an obstacle though... It goes back to an suggestion EvergreenFir raised on User Talk:Doug Weller#BLPs, Mental Illness, and WP:BLPCAT (which is indirectly what of prompted me to make this AFD). EvergreenFir had said, "I wonder what you'd think of a proposal to include mental illness to religious beliefs and sexual orientation as things that require self-identification in BLPCAT." There's a lot of unrelated discussion to sift through, but somewhere in there Doug Weller made a good point that we can't use the same BLP inclusion criteria for mental illness that we would for religion or sexual orientation, because self-reports of mental illness are generally unreliable. On the other hand, it's confidential, so self-reports are pretty much the only way someone's diagnosis would be published. For example, a few of the sources are quoting the celeb talking about having ADHD as a kid and expressing anti-medication sentiments. Kind of like, "I took stimulants as a kid, so I know from experience that ADHD is over-diagnosed and meds are overprescribed..." yada yada yada. So it's like they were casting doubt on their diagnosis when they brought it up. Plus I'm not sure if it's trustworthy since there was clearly a motive to push an anti-medication agenda. Something else just occurred to me... since it's a medical diagnosis, would the source need to be WP:MEDRS? Permstrump (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK now I have read most of those discussions and find myself in the "must be prominently self-identified" (or have other extraordinary association) camp. We are not making diagnosis but are reporting on fact of their self-identification. See how I have just revised lede defining criteria significantly. And I have dropped a couple whose ADHD is dubious and who did not self-identify. Haven't noticed anti-medication bias in sources, but it would be fine and relevant to note anti-medicine opinion of a list member. The list is more useful if it shows diversity. --doncram 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Let's just ignore the issues of self-identification for a moment. What's the point of this list? Lists are supposed to help you find a comprehensive guide (or a guide to the most prominent examples, in some cases) to a specific class of entities, because it's often important to know "These are all the items of type X" or "These are the most prominent items of type X". Obviously this list can't give a full list of AD(H)D folks, so it's "most prominent examples" time. What researcher benefits from a list of people with AD(H)D? This is fundamentally not the point of an encyclopedic list: a quick Google search finds a lot of pages with such lists, pages from other types of websites that are really better suited to this. When X is a medical condition of any sort, "list of people with X" makes sense when X is exceptionally rare, when the identities of the individuals with the condition are important to studies of the condition itself (e.g. medical specialists in the condition would be aware of everyone who's been diagnosed), but when it's a widely diagnosed medical condition like AD(H)D, a list like this one just isn't encyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a list of the most prominent examples, which is a valid type of list as you point out. Currently there are extremely few examples, so this list also seems to meet the standard of "X is extremely rare", where X=person has significant association with ADHD and it is reliably known. I am not familiar with any argument that a list has to be useful for research. There are lists of Italian-Americans, and Russians, and musicians, and women artists, where there has never been any assertion or requirement that they must be useful for any research. --doncram 01:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC) [22:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Peripheral comments

• Nyttend, Doncram, Andrew D. (and anyone else who sees this): You might be interested in the discussion at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#BLPCAT.2C mental illnesses.2C and learning disabilities. There's some overlap with this discussion, but over there, the purpose is to come up with a draft proposal of a policy that sets parameters on when a BLP should include/not include private health information about psych-related conditions. Permstrump (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I just came across a similar AFD from 3 years ago, so I put it in a box up top. The result was to close. At first glance it almost looks like the same exact website as this one, but there's a hyphen in the older one, as in "attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder." Permstrump (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update [this is the nominator's "Vote"] : After I first listed this, Roger (Dodger67) mentioned WP:EGRS in a different thread, and I realized I should have cited it here. Per Disability, medical, or psychological conditions, "People with these conditions should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have a speech impediment, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category." (My emphasis on "regularly"). WP:DEFINING suggests using the following “rules-of-thumb” for determining the difference between the standards of notability, verifiability and definingness:

• A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people).

• if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining

Two weeks ago, there were 23 names on the list of people with ADHD, and now there are 6 after Doncram and EvergreenFir deleted a bunch of names that lacked RS or meaningful coverage of their ADHD. ADHD isn't DEFINING for a single one of them, except maybe Howie Mandel. It’s also a problem that the media is often vague about the source of the diagnosis and there’s TONS of circular referencing when it comes to celebrities. Even in a mainstream newspaper, I don’t think media reports are reliable enough for a topic of this nature. For example, here’s a NYT article about an interview with Channing Tatum that mentions his history of ADHD and learning disabilities. As Doncram pointed out, the author never said exactly what the source of the diagnosis was. We’re not sure if the journalist got it from the interview or from a google search, yet there are tons of other sources citing NYT as the original source for that information. Little things like that are easy to overlook, so when it comes to BLPs and private health information, I don’t see a good reason to keep a list like this that serves no clear purpose. PermStrump(talk) 16:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Permstrump: FYI per WP:AFDFORMAT a nomination implies a delete !vote. No limits on commenting or anything, but you should remove the bolded word "Delete" here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Significant coverage meets WP:LISTN as well as Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder meeting WP:CLN. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What part of CLN specifically are you saying it passes? Because I'm not seeing inclusion/exclusion criteria there. Also, how are you interpreting WP:LISTN? Because the way I'm interpreting it, this list clearly fails LISTN. Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but where it says, "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." To me, that means that the list is notable if everyone on the list is grouped together and discussed in reliable sources. And that names of people who aren't notable enough for their own article can be on the list as long as their name appears with the same group of people when the list has been published in reliable sources. Where else do these names appear together on a list of people with ADHD?: Glenn Beck, Marie-Mai Bouchard, Adam Levine, Howie Mandel, Ty Pennington, Michael Phelps? I see lists in WP:QUESTIONABLE sources with some of those names, but I don't see anywhere that all of these people are discussed as a group in a reliable source. PermStrump(talk) 23:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Permstrump:, in all past usage of LISTN as a criteria that I've seen, it has never been suggested that all the members of the group need to be listed together. Rather it has been whether there has ever been references to the type of thing, or to the group collectively, like for Masonic buildings, that one could say "Masonic buildings in the U.S. are common and often monumental in scale, while there are few purpose-built Masonic buildings in Great Britain". As opposed to being a mere intersection, like dentists who live in Ohio. The above-cited article is one example where the group of notable persons with ADHD is explicitly addressed...it is a clearly reliable source on exactly that subject. And I have many times heard of "notable persons with ADHD"; I am comfortable that this is a thing.
• And as Tanbircdq points out, wp:CLN applies, and the existence (and I assume support for) the category supports having a list. If a list exists there can be a category almost always, and if there is a category there can always be a list. (And also a navigation template is a kind of list.) Having a list provides additional good information: lists can and should include references and also red-links and blacklinks (for examples of the type that are surely individually notable and those that are surely "list-notable", a possibly lower standard that can be decided by consensus at a list's talk page). --doncram 00:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per doncram Hawaan12 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per the 2013 strong consensus on fundamentally the same topic, and the January consensus on a parallel issue. This entire concept is troubling from a BLP issue; medical diagnoses of living individuals cannot and must not be sourced to the media. As noted above, WP:EGRS provides an imperative to proceed with caution, and to restrict inclusion in lists of this nature to those people with the condition as a defining characteristic of their notability. I am hard pressed to argue that even for Howie Mandel, this diagnosis is defining in our sense of the term. And the wider we permit the net to be cast, the more problematic the list becomes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List of notable people on a notable topic with a clear inclusion criteria and sources. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete As I always say when these lists come up, having reliable sources that mention that individuals have a certain trait isn't enough - the entire list topic needs to notable with significant, multiple, reliable sources discussing the topic itself in depth. While there are a few sources that do this - mostly celebrity or otherwise lightweight magazines - I don't think it quite rises to the level of significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is still vulnerable to any likely troubles and such, nothing that is particularly safe from it so best deleted. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't really see the value of having this list, and as others have commented, there are ethical issues with listing people with a particular medical condition that might lead to their stigmatisation, sourced to media reports. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see no purpose in having this list, I doubt that it would be really useful to anyone. And then of course there's the problem of self-identification. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one problem with such a list is that the definition of the disorder is not fixed. When I was 12 I was diagnosed with ADHD. However when I was 24 I was rediagnosed with different issues. So this is not a very fixed diagnosis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2016 (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.