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. Shanel 02:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy & paste job form the linked sites, which are not commercial and some text has been added, so not strictly copyvio. But they are not reliable sources. We have a list of fictional chracters with ADHD, but I did not see a list which duplicates this. On the other hand, without careful sourcing it is a minefield. Just zis Guy you know? 12:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. This type of list should be meticulously sourced or not exist. If reliable sources are provided through the course of this discussion, I'll reconsider. PJM 13:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Also these types of lists have problems with verification and point of view content, due to the non-public nature of medical records and that many people on this list were/are deceased before the public medical introduction of the term (in the DSM III in 1980). Point of view problems also crop up as some of these names also commonly appear on net in lists of Famous People with Dyslexia or Famous People with Learning Disorder/Disability (that is not lists of people with LDs and ADD).--Blue520 13:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 13:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Artical lacks sources...the second source is just quoting the first source. The first source states it as "...or shows symptoms of ADD" which makes it misleading to assume that everyone on this list actually has ADD. Nigelthefish 16:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every one of the claims should be verified. At the moment, the list is useless to a researcher as a claim counts for nothing without evidence to back it up.  (aeropagitica)  17:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Isn't there a category for this already, anyway? 23skidoo 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Gflores ^Talk 02:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment funny how the consensus differs on this vs. the speculative lists, if this were titled "People speculated to have ADD" would it then be acceptable? No consistency on this problematic. Let's think through larger issues rather than one-offs here. Carlossuarez46 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No inconsistency fomr me - you'll see I voted deleted on the speculative list as well. But that was speculation taken from a published source, this is speculation taken from a Comcast homepage and a semi-commercial activist website selling product listings (i.e. not even in the same postal district as WP:RS), and then represented as fact. Just zis Guy you know? 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD has no jurisdiction over copyright law, which the nominator alludes to. If someone thinks this infringes copyright, it needs either speedily deleting, or blanking and taking to WP:CP. Copyright problems are not keepable, no matter what AfD may think. -Splash^talk 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - badly sourced speculation. --Rob 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:01, 23 March 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.