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.
Keep, as your deletion rationale is the same as that of the last AfD, and the last AfD closed as keep, not as "keep, but hurry and fix this article NOW or it'll get deleted soon", and as far as Im aware our inclusion standards have not significantly changed since then. -- SoapTalk/Contributions12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me a somewhat odd subject, but apparently (from the respectable set of sources) one of significant scientific interest. Michael Fitzgerald's many speculations make the list part a bit crufty, but that's a content and/or presentation issue rather than an AfD. • Anakin(talk)13:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad that it's sourced, but it reminds me of those silly studies where someone calculates the IQs of everyone from Cleopatra to Abe Lincoln. Psychiatrists and psychologists have to publish or perish, the same way that a sportwriter has to write a daily column even when there's nothing much to say. I'm sorry, but these studies have "trendy" written all over them, and autism is the public health crisis of the moment. I despise this type of list all the more, since it portrays autism as something that gifted and accomplished people in history are "speculated" to have had. Autism is not a "gift", any more so than Down's Syndrome or schizophrenia. There have been many children and adults who have made great strides in overcoming what most would consider a handicap, generally with the help of therapy. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this article is well sourced, and in spite of the "iffy" article title, is needed and useful. As the sources state, diagnosing Asperger's is somewhat of a cottage industry, furthered by some well known sources, and this article serves an encyclopedic purpose and demonstrates that thriving cottage industry well. The nominator's statement does not indicate a valid reason for deletion; the article is very well sourced. The previous delete statement also fails to address Wiki-based reasons for deletion (seems to be mostly "I don't like it"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too speculative to be encyclopedic, and too dependent on a small handful of sources. The "sum of all human knowledge" is not the same as the "sum of all human knowledge, plus some interesting and possibly accurate guesswork." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; everything is sufficiently sourced, and the "speculation" is attributed to the "speculators". Significant minority views and even fringe theories have their place on this wikipedia, and meet the standards of WP:Neutral point of view as long as we present it fairly and without bias (which means looking for reliable criticism on the subject). Not including significant minority views would actually be against WP:NPOV. Besides, it doesn't take a genius to read a biography on someone's life with the diagnostic criteria at hand to, albeit informally, diagnose someone, especially with an autism spectrum disorder. If one were to divide this article into the books/reviews sourced (or by authors), each article would probably have merit on its own, although perhaps a small topic to cover. Having it all on one page is more efficient. Incorporating a criticism section sounds like the best option. MichaelExe (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retitle I would normally say delete, because of that "speculate". Burt if we can limit to people where the speculation is from very good reliable sources, and is discussed in those sources, not just alluded to, as it is here, and limited to deceased people--as it is-- to avoid major BLP problems, I do not seethe objections. I think in a few cases the speculations are too loose to justify entry, or the sources not fully reliable. I would exclude as a source books devoted to listing possible cases of autism as possibly indiscriminate, and I think I would strongly prefer major academic sources,either discussing the question, or as biographies of the person.(as ideas of what I think unreliable sources to use by themselves are ref 4 5 and 7, better sources And possibly 4-- Fitzgerald, though a responsible academic, is arguably out to collect as many cases as possible cases to prove a thesis. As people for whom there is insufficient evidence, I'd instance Jefferson, & Yeats. I'd suggest a title: Historical figures sometimes considered autistic DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per DGG. This list is not speculative in the sense that the authors committed original research to write it; if sources exist to reliably document speculation that an individual may have been autistic, the content then becomes perfectly encyclopedic. I note, however, that this list should never include living people unless it's absolutely necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk17:23, 23 October 2009 (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.