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. It's snowing Star Mississippi 03:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of schizophrenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

A rambling and entirely unnecessary list. We already have a History of schizophrenia article, which discusses the topic in an encyclopaedic manner. This instead consists of what appears to be a personal selection of more or less arbitrary snippets, only some of which actually relate to schizophrenia at all. To describe it as original research would probably be unduly flattering, in that it doesn't appear to have been based on any actual research worthy of the description. Instead it seems to be a list compiled to make some sort of point. Not that it does even that very well, considering its tendency to wander off-topic into discussions of Freud's cigar-smoking, the origin of the word 'eugenics', and Babylonian divination practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Medicine, and Psychiatry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think WP:TNT applies here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I agree with everything posted by the filer. Clearly a non-encyclopaedic example of list-cruft, although it probably does not even meet that low standard. History of schizophrenia sufficiently handles this topic. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft. In the unlikely event that it contains any good and properly sourced information not already present in History of schizophrenia, merge it into that article. Bishonen | tålk 13:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. 11:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as totally unnecessary. It directly predates the History of schizophrenia article. HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 13:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is better covered under the already existing article about the history of the disorder. This feels like an essay or a too long list of citations a person has found cobbled together. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Draftify Hemiauchenia, JoJo Anthrax provides an essay not policy as a reason so their reasons aren't necessary according to any policy. No indication of why "Speedy Delete" is necessary, if the artilce meets criteria for this type of deletion then what is the criteria, if there is one, then the other editors would have found the reason for this type of deletion also. So what is the specific reason? None of the editors provide any policy reason for deletion. " In the unlikely event that it contains any good and properly sourced information not already present in History of schizophrenia" doesn't indicate evidence of a reason, "In the unlikely event" isn't proof (the editor hasn't verified if it does or doesn't). "totally unnecessary" how is it unecessary - describe how the article has complete non necessity (plus statistics of viweres who also should apparently know unessary when they chose to view). It feels like an essay: then if it were an essay the relevant notice could be filed to the top of the page "needs improvement as reads like an essay" which isn't a reason for deletion. "too long list of citations a person has found cobbled together" is not a reason for deletion, is avague criticism without any actual comment on how the article obviously shouldn't exist. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC) AndyTheGrump provides at least comments which could be construed as critical, ut they aren't true as a matter-of-fact whch could be determined y discussion on the Talk pahe which isn't provided by a discussion of deletion (and no discussion of improvinfg the article has een made). That the filer has identified the parts he disagrees with means those parts could e deleted, but obviously there are numerous parts which are relevant to the term schizophrenia. The parts which seem irrelevant are with the history of symptoms prior to 1908 when the trmn was created, which is obvious to anyone who has tried to understand the suject. The article is simply not failing OR and everything is attached to infomration within the sources, so that criticism is not true simply. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC) the filers reasons are just rhetoric without any real consideration of the value of the article, which approximately 50 people per day think is an interesting subject matter. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC) That the reasons why I placed the infomation into the article isn't known therefore presumed wrong by the filer and his supporters does not indicate that there isn't a reason, which is quite easy to understand, actually (why I chose to add the information which is in the article) it is more a observation of the lack of effort that editors have made to understand the article, or their lack of understanding of the subject. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a complete mess of an article. WP:TNT at the very least. Not convinced it needs a separate article and it actually appears to just be a Wp:COATRACK to hang a ridiculous (and I mean ridiculous) list of every single reference someone can locate and list every book they can find. In fact it seems that it's a list of references and a bibliography with an ill formed and sometimes incoherent list that exists just to justify the sources. Even if this is needing an actual article (not convinced), this is certainly not it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft with unclear, meandering scope. This comes across like a passion project intended to further some purpose, while at the same time being so difficult to follow that the purpose isn't comprehensible. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TNT as utterly incomprehensible. Rehsarb (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2024 (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.