Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders

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.

List of people with autism spectrum disorders

List of people with autism spectrum disorders (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)

This was kept in 2007, but much has changed since then, especially around

• Delete, inherently
  WP:BLP-dangerous and people are being added with limited checks, balances, and accountability. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• leaning Delete as impossible to be accurate on. Realisitically should be limited to medical Reliable Sources...but this would eliminate about 95% of entries...meaning it was likely to be incomplete. I also question the reliablility of diagnoses appearing in print. In summary, however you ubse sources, the article is likely to be incorrect to the point of being misleading and hence worse than if no such article existed. And then throw in BLP issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list is restricted to notable people, so it has reasonable inclusion criteria, and a lot of care has been taken to provide refs for each entry. A few of these may be non-reliable but in the main I think they're OK. If a person is indicated in reliable sources to have one of these conditions, or has themselves acknowledged this, I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia. The article itself makes no mention of a link between ASD and crime, and only mentions criminal activity when the person is notable because of a crime they committed. Neiltonks (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

✈ 14:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the autistic spectrum for the first nomination. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposing the nominator's rationale. I don't know whether we should keep this list, or not, but there's a fundamental problem with the nomination statement: someone's bound to take
  defining!" and delete the category. Long-term, if we want to have a page that serves as a collection of articles about people with autism spectrum disorders, it needs to be in mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nyttend Please explain CFD. I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, but I had a role in initiating this discussion, so I would like to understand. Thanks. Galerita (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyttend Gotcha, CFD = "consider for deletion" , and the category has the same issues as the list.Galerita (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list is one of many WP lists and is arguably governed by the many additional WP rules, policies, guidelines and templates. In my opinion, any such list could be condemned similarly by those who claim merely that a subject’s inclusion is harmful to others so listed. In my quick review of such rules, policies, guidelines and templates, the overriding rules-of-thumb appear, of course, to be the notability of the subjects (which, if they enjoy WP articles, has been largely determined) and the reliability of best-source material. The descriptive phrases added to most of the subjects that are included in the list in question appear near-verbatim at the subjects’ own articles. Of course, such descriptions may be edited to avoid intentional or unintentional bias, but should probably be edited in both stand-alone articles and the list in question. If a descriptive phrase isn’t biased for one use, it wouldn’t likely be biased for both. I see no reason to delete this one of many WP lists which routinely serve WP users well as a search aid in pointing them to desired content in the quickest and simplest ways possible. 2001:558:6008:3B:70E8:5D7:EAC:B6E2 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is easy to create overall bias by gathering accurate descriptions from individual articles. From
  WP:COATRACK, the "article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subjects" (emphasis added).Galerita (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep If the list is biased towards violent criminals, the solution is to add other notable individuals, not delete everything. Even if the list in its present form violates
  WP:BLP since that only applies to individuals, not whole large groups of people, and none of the information about any individuals mentioned is incorrect - their crimes and diagnosis are both well-sourced. Whether it fairly portrays ASD as a whole is more debatable, but that's a NPOV issue, not a BLP issue. Smartyllama (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Your point on HIV is a strawman argument, HIV is a definitive test. A diagnosis on the autism spectrum is not. The fall of pmpei (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A solution might also involve removing listings with garbage sources, such as Christopher Harper-Mercer, which you want included on grounds that his MOTHER once said he had Asperger's. Yah, you're actually pretty good evidence for deleting this garbage magnet, to remove the temptation to fill it with this sort of nonsense. --Calton | Talk 01:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I worry about citations of this type too, but a mother is in a position to know someone's medical history. Whether she represents it truthfully during a criminal prosecution is another question that can't be answered either way without additional sources to draw on. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so basically you don't understand sourcing requirements, you don't understand BLP policy, you don't understand basic standards of proof, and you don't understand, apparently, basic standards of human decency. So go away, you're supremely unqualified to to commenting here. --Calton | Talk 09:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How about if I don't, and you check your attitude? 50.185.134.48 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't suffer fools gladly, so hey, it sucks to be you. Remaining ignorant is your choice, but it certainly doesn't help discussion when you spout misinformation. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Criteria for inclusion are irrelevant to this AfD and should be handled via the open RfC on the article's talk page. Regardless of whether the article in its current form violates
  List of HIV-positive individuals among numerous other ones. Hence any possible BLP violations are irrelevant to this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "...the solution is to add other notable individuals". Again not a
  WP:COAT. One such selection bias there are few ways to get public access to a verifiable ASD diagnosis. Court records are one of the few ways. Hence the list is top heavy with criminals. I don't think it will be possible to prepare an unbiased list from publicly available data.Galerita (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In retrospect this issue is covered by
  WP:BIAS#Availability of sources may cause bias as well as other points made on that page. (CAN SOMEONE HELP ME CREATE LINKS TO SUBSECTIONS).Galerita (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I fixed the link above. In the future, use a # sign in between the title and the section/subsection. You only need to do it for the deepest subsection you want, as shown above. As for your actual point, the policy you cited says such articles should be improved, not deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being on the autism spectrum is a positive cultural identity for some people. There are some health variations that people claim as a source of pride, especially when there can be cultural pressure to isolate and shame people for being different. The article might be renamed to something like "People who identify as being AS" if that helps address BLP concerns of this list being used in a negative way, but for the sake of those who publicize their own AS as part of their identity there is no reason to treat that differently from other notable personal traits. I do think the word "disorder" should be removed from the title. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great reason for a category, shit reason for a list of criminals tarring the innocent with the same brush. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, no. Openly legitimizing amateur diagnosis and "X-Men" conceptions of autism will not solve any problem with this list. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Good thing he didn't do that, then. What would solve problems with this list would be to set it on fire and bulldoze the ashes. --Calton | Talk 09:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely The "positive cultural identity" will be completely swamped by distressed individuals with ASD finding they are in the company of serial killers. The article probably will be harmful. I suspect there is no WP:INJURIOUS tag, but maybe there should be. Galerita (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Blue Rasberry comments--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"per" !votes are considered

WP:PERX. Mkdw^talk 23:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

in that case... "autism spectrum is a positive cultural identity for some people. There are some health variations that people claim as a source of pride" , I agree w/ this statement[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even in the cases where references mention ASD, unless those references are reliable medical sources or cite such sources then this list is very close to libel. There are entries in this list that do not mention ASD, such as this. Given that ASD is still not a clear syndrome and cannot be tested (unlike diabetes or epilepsy) this list seems like a really bad ideal. LaMona (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an extraordinary and unreasonable sourcing standard. When someone very close to an individual has stated in print that they have a medical condition, there is no requirement that that they furnish medical documents proving it. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there there has to be the slightest shred of evidence that a person making a diagnosis is actually qualified to diagnose medical conditions. If you think "The University of Google" is a qualification, you're not qualified to edit here. --Calton | Talk 09:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Who says they were the ones making the diagnosis as opposed to noting it? The doctors themselves can't actually comment due to doctor-patient confidentiality. The best we can have is a family member or the individual themselves saying they were diagnosed. And if we're not going to allow that, then we can't allow any other mention of any medical diagnosis in any other article, which is ridiculous. When articles mention so-and-so was diagnosed with cancer in whatever year, it is obvious they did not diagnose themselves. We don't need a reference quoting their doctor. A citation that the individual or a family member says they were diagnosed with cancer is sufficient. ASD should have the same standard, and I don't see why list articles should be held to any different citation standards than the articles about the individual themselves. Smartyllama (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Doubling down on a flimsy rationale to skirt basic sourcing policy is not really your best bet, son. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you see any entry on the list that is cited to "The University of Google"? I didn't think so. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you actually understand my comment and to whom I was referring> No, I didn't think so. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure if this list should be deleted or not but I'm nervous about editors adding individuals where the sources used are highly speculative.
  WP:BLP outlines community responsibilities to not to include, even well sourced material, if an individual's notability stems from being victimized by another's actions. While not enforceable, I would want to see the list adhere to only individuals who they themselves have acknowledged and publicly released this information about themselves -- or if it's been the heavy subject medical documentation. Mkdw^talk 23:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A very selective and harmful BLP violation, implying that persons on the autism spectrum are very likely to become "perpetrators" of murder, financial crime, or support for terrorism. The word "perpetrator" appears about 30 times. Someone has selectively added the names of persons in the news for crimes when a claim was made they were autistic or had aspergers. There may be a selection bias in that criminal defendants find a defense psychiatrist to tender an autism or asperger diagnosis to try and get a lower sentence, whereas few entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley or academic stars see a benefit to obtaining and publicizing the same diagnosis. Some had brain damage as children, so an autism diagnosis is unlikely. Many famous persons who did great good and are equally speculated to be on the autism spectrum are omitted. When I called for keeping it in the 2007 AFD, the word "perpetrator" did not appear in the article. Edison (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One cannot commit a "BLP violation" against an unmentioned person by printing sourced claims about other people. That's a bizarre interpretation. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The number of infamous individuals included in this questioned WP article are also the subjects (or other included individuals) of their own stand-alone WP articles in the same way that the various autistic American Idol contestants are included; in fact, WP itself is where many of the newest additions of infamous subjects were discovered (a WP list being a list of WP articles, after all). I don't remember seeing any concerns published about deleting the infamous subjects' autism at the original WP articles, so why publish such concerns now? 2001:558:6008:3B:ED21:FCAC:1B9F:C0B4 (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If you have a reliable source that these people who did great good have ASD, then add them. If you don't, that's speculation and original research and it doesn't belong here. As is saying someone with a reliably sourced diagnosis of ASD must not have it because of childhood brain damage or low IQ or whatever. Smartyllama (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strangely the word "perpetrator" only appears 7 times on my most recent reading. It was much more frequent when I first read the article.Galerita (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To quote a Talk page comment from 2014, this is "[a] list of people who might have had a poorly defined condition". It's not just that it's subject to abuse, it's ALREADY being subject to abuse, given the heavy weighting to criminals and evil-doers. And then there's the sad spectacle of the editor arguing for inclusion of a subject on grounds that the subject's MOTHER had said so on an online forum, and that she's more reliable at diagnosing a poorly understand medical condition than, say, actual doctors. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be a poorly defined condition, but it's medically recognized. A "diagnosis" publicized by someone's mother (or defense attorney) might be an expert diagnosis or it might not. I'm always glad to knock down an amateur diagnosis when I find evidence, but until then one has to defer to the best public information available. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You have it backwards: in a BLP -- or, ideally, life in general -- the burden of proof is not on DISPROVING a diagnosis and removing it, it's on proving it before adding. So it's confused editors like you who are providing evidence for the deletion of garbage magnet. --Calton | Talk 09:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you have it wrong. BLP doesn't require that anything be PROVED, whatever that may involve. It requires reliable sources. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem easily confused by not only about Wikipedia standards and policies, but also basic English words and simple logic. Hint: what is the purpose of the reliable source? And bonus points for the question-begging about reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 08:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Could easily be open to abuse on a
  WP:MEDRS references only. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Literally every article on Wikipedia is "open" to BLP violations. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As you will see from the edit history, I have been monitoring this page for a while. I have had many concerns about its content, but never its purpose. It is one of many lists dual to a category, and it is useful for keeping track of citations to verify that autism spectrum diagnosis exists. Without it, verifying the related categories would be more difficult. If the descriptions are a source of conflict, that be worked on without deleting the list. If you believe any items on the list are poorly sourced as to the diagnosis, please point them out to me on my talk page, since what I mainly do is remove such items. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete damaging to people with very floppy refs, besides, where is the page for people with ingrown toe nails?

The fall of pmpei (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Further to the point on an argument elsewhere on this page. Using a court document as evidence of a diagnoses is flawed . A prosecutor or defense lawyer will select and discount a psychiatrist and thus a diagnosis for their own purpose. The fall of pmpei (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A defined list with clear inclusion criteria all backed up with reliable sources. The BLP note is a red-herring, as unsourced/poorly sourced enteries can be removed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha,it is very well recorded that Martin Bryant has a measured IQ of 66 yet he still keeps turning up on this page The fall of pmpei (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. At the very least, it should be renamed to remove "disorder" from the title, and be restricted to people who self-identify in such a way, as i believe we have now done with those other potentially disruptive descriptors, religions; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 13:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A proposal was made a while back to move this page to List of individuals on the autistic spectrum. No consensus was reached. I have no objection to such a move. Also, at least in the United States, any primary medical sources would be subject to doctor-patient confidentiality and thus impossible to obtain. If the individual or a family member says they were diagnosed with ASD, that should be sufficient, since it's the best we're going to get. Smartyllama (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Smartyllama (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire idea of Wikipedia.org is reliant on the best, most reputable, reported source material. I agree that the idea of requiring diagnostic proof to pursue creating an article about an autistic individual, or expanding an existing article to include a mention of autism, is a bridge too far for the likes of WP. Making such a requirement would be akin to demanding a WP administrative review of one's diagnostic "papers." I would love to see the WP editor who dares try making such a demand of Daryl Hannah or John Elder Robison. All I could say is "good luck with that." Even today, some diagnoses are made verbally to an individual. Yes, the individuals known to a subject (including family, friends, co-workers and the occasional news reporter) are reasonable substitutions for subjects themselves. I appreciated the comparison to the WP article
  List of HIV-positive individuals. The debated conditions within this questioned article are almost exactly identical to the HIV article; and yet, the HIV article remains a good direction to good biographical articles. Let's stop debating angels, pinheads and such. 2001:558:6008:3B:ED21:FCAC:1B9F:C0B4 (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "...primary medical sources would be subject to doctor-patient confidentiality and thus impossible to obtain." With the exception of court records, which is one reason for the
  WP:COAT.Galerita (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Commment: I don't think it is at all helpful to debate the deletion of this list in terms of objections to some outlier items on it. That is a content dispute, to be resolved through other processes. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per LaMona and Casliber's point that it is almost impossible to be accurate about diagnoses, and the unreliabilty of thise appearing in print. Edison's also makes a good point regarding possible "selection bias in that criminal defendants find a defense psychiatrist to tender an autism or asperger diagnosis to try and get a lower sentence". --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The accuracy of diagnoses can be checked case-by-case. Which I do, I've dug into dozens of public diagnosis reports to get close to the source and what they specifically said. Unfortunately sometimes complete details aren't available and a press reporter has to be taken at their word, which is permitted. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, journalists are reliable sources for medical diagnoses. Oh wait, they're not, however convenient it is for you. --Calton | Talk 08:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• They can be reliable reporters of diagnoses. That's what journalists do, Jack. They report things that other people are doing. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the concept. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You've confused reporters with stenographers, so it's not me who needs the education. Hint: I've actually worked as a reporter, so I've seen the sausage being made. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

50.185.134.48, journalists are not reliable sources for medical diagnoses, and your

WP:OR is not allowed either. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah! So news reports are never to be cited in Wikipedia for verification and even looking for published sources on a claim constitutes "original research"! There won't be much left of Wikipedia under that interpretation. 50.185.134.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think of the merits of the AfD on other grounds, to say news reports are not reliable sources contradicts

WP:NEWSORG - ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" Unless you want to scrub every mention of any medical diagnosis from every single Wikipedia article, that's clearly taking this too far. I can see some merits for deleting this article, but that goes way, way too far. Smartyllama (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as a violation of
  WP:COATRACK is that subject is the subject of the article, not necessarily an individual person.Galerita (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I've given many other reasons for deletion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_people_with_autism_spectrum_disorders#RFC and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_Content.2F3RR_and_Lack_of_civility_on_List_of_people_with_autism_spectrum_disorders (How do I tag these???). Most are already covered above. I note particularly the potential for psychological harm and the selection bias.Galerita (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And COATRACK is grounds for rewriting the article, not deleting it entirely. If you feel the article violates COATRACK and should be rewritten, then that belongs in the RfC, not an AfD discussion. As long as it's possible for a version of this article to exist which doesn't violate COATRACK, which it obviously is as evidenced by similar lists, the article should be rewritten, not deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NPOV. Each of these alone is sufficient grounds for deletion.Galerita (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The anon above (50.185.134.48) has done a pretty good job at fixing it. I'm the one who reverted you and I have no problem with his removals. One bad editor editing an article is not sufficient grounds to delete it. Otherwise, anyone could vandalize an article they didn't like and get it deleted just to stop them. And
  WP:COATRACK still isn't grounds for deletion. Read the page again. Where does it ever say such pages should be deleted? Smartyllama (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The list does not "focus" on people who have committed crimes. It lists them. The descriptions are long enough to accurately state what they did and where they stand legally. If you think you can make them shorter, go ahead. The ongoing complaints of BLP, coatracking and bias increasingly look to me like a way of sneaking censorship in through the back door. The set of people diagnosed with ASD includes some criminals, whether one likes it or not. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia isn't a blog, newspaper or current affairs show, where you can publish and be damned. If censorship is removing material that is not
  WP:5P, then all editing is censorship. By its nature this page has serious WP:BLP and WP:BIAS issues. A list of ASD people that largely consists of criminals, where the crime and the ASD are unrelated is a seriously biased portrayal of people with ASD. Galerita (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I wish I knew what fraction of criminals on a list of medically diagnosed individuals makes the list POV. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting question. I wondered myself since I work in diagnosis of medical conditions, notably cancer, which is more clear cut (but still imperfect). Some of the issues:

• diagnosis of psychiatric/psychological conditions is inherently inaccurate and these conditions are poorly defined in the first place. Psychiatric conditions have a huge overlap in symptoms. For example many personality disorders, such as BPD, have autistic traits (http://aspertypical.com/2013/06/12/the-borderline-of-aspergers-the-similarities-between-borderline-personality-disorder-and-autism/).
• most people with ASD would not seek diagnosis. Many would not even suspect they have the condition.
• Diagnosis of a medical condition is only useful if it achieves something - leads to a treatment; explains behaviour; generates sympathy (maybe in court); helps acceptance within a family; etc. There may be pressure to get a diagnosis to achieve leniency in a court case.
• Aspergers has been a fad with signs of over-diagnosis.
• Many psychiatric conditions are co-morbid with ASD, especially depression, anxiety, bipolar, ADHD and OCD. This is unclear with personality disorders, partly due to an overlap of symptoms. You are born with ASD, whereas personality disorders develop over time often as a result of abuse, neglect, etc. You could hypothesise someone with ASD would be more likely to be neglected & abused and so develop a personality disorder. It would be just that; an untested hypothesis.
• There is research on the link between ASD and violence/psychopathy (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shadow-boxing/201402/aspergers-disorder-vs-psychopathy). Serious violent behaviour does NOT appear to be more common among people with ASD. In violent people with ASD, a probable comorbid condition linked to violence is usually present that would explain the violence (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shadow-boxing/201402/aspergers-disorder-vs-psychopathy).
• It's not my field of medical research, but I doubt a consensus view among experts is available at the moment. It's hard enough getting a consensus in cancer diagnosis.Galerita (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP concerns listed above, and being diagnosed with autism is not a defining trait for many of the people listed to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- incurable BLP problems make this article unsuitable for Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 07:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The word "perpetrator" no longer appears on this page thanks to cleanup by an anon. Several of the entries have been removed, those with reliable sources such as Adam Lanza were rephrased. Interestingly, the Lanza source specifically discredits any link between ASD and violence. Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - The most common reasons for deletion look to be
  WP:BLP grounds. If deletion isn't supposed to be based on the current composition of a list, if all Wikipedia articles requires strong sources for BLPs, if reliable sources could be required for every addition, and if everybody on the list is a notable person, I don't understand what the argument is. We don't delete things because people could be added inappropriately or because it could be abused. And if that's all it takes to be deleted, what's going on with every page at Category:People with personality disorders, Category:Lists of people with disabilities, and even some of Category:Lists of people by medical condition? If the BLP issue is utterly unavoidable, should those other pages be deleted? Could someone summarize the BLP issue that looks to be spread over too many pages for those of us who are thus far uninvolved? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per the BLP issues that ought to be clear as day from the first paragraph of the article. "This is a list of notable individuals who have been diagnosed with (a) condition on the autism spectrum ... even a formal diagnosis cannot be taken as certain proof that person has (such a) condition." And that's without the flaky referencing. Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as others have said, BLP is a major problem - and so is lack of verifiability in too many cases. We should also be concerned about many other List of people with <some disease or other> - they all seem pretty dubious. Autism is of special concern because it's a spectrum condition - and many laypersons are confused about what that truly means. High-functioning aspergers' is a very different kettle of fish than profound Austim and lumping people together on a list is highly dubious. SteveBaker (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. There is, quite literally, no redeeming value to maintaining such a list on the project. It has huge potential to cause major
  verifiability concerns raised multiple times above, make this a fairly straightforward call, in my view. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 22:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A
  WP:COATRACK of sheer speculation, not backed up by any RS medical diagnosis evidence. Violates all kinds of WP policies/guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I believe the editing community has the moral obligation to identify situations where increased risks to
  WP:IAR must be applied. I believe in this case the potential harm to individuals outweighs the value and need for this list to exist as part of this encyclopedia. Lists also require the establishment of these individuals as a group whereas they're being thrown together at the discretion of editorial judgement, not third party publications. Mkdw^talk 06:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks Mkdw. I made a comment above about the possibility of "...distressed individuals with ASD finding they are in the company of serial killers. The article probably will be harmful. I suspect there is no WP:INJURIOUS tag, but maybe there should be." (My original tag has been lost. I've added another.) The potential harms are at least threefold:

1) Criminals included in the list. OK, they've lost certain rights so let's ignore them for this discussion.

2) Non-criminal persons included in a list that disproportionately includes criminals.

3) Members of the public with ASD browsing the list.

The "possibility of harm to living subjects" is a more complex issue in this instance that it might normally be. Galerita (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not just a BLP nightmare waiting to happen (or, really, already happening) but also fraught with other problems, from COATRACK to UNDUE, by way of SYNTH. The suggestion is there, much too strongly, that the one (autism) has something to do with the other (crime). Never mind that the sourcing for such lists (and the associated biographical articles) is all too frequently too weak to make such suggested charges stick. No. Mkdw, above, says it quite well, as do Casliber, Stifle...
• Question. Is a diagnosis obtained for the purposes of a court case a
  WP:PRIMARY issue? See also WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I don't understand the importance of the primary/secondary/tertiary source issue. Can someone point me to a good discussion of the reasoning. Galerita (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'd like some further clarification on what exactly is an acceptable source for a medical diagnosis in general, since Softlavender seemed to say above news reports weren't reliable, which would render 99 percent of reported medical diagnoses on Wikipedia (and not just ASD) unreliable. Perhaps Softlavender can explain himself here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Psychiatric diagnoses are somewhat different to many others in medicine in that they have no investigations to prove them. Unlike, say, diabetes, asthma or cancer, they rely on a clinician's interpretation of a set of symptoms. Problem is, even among qualified psychiatrists there will be considerable diversity in opinion, which gets bigger when one adds general medical doctors, psychologists and self-diagnosis. You'll get doctors that doubt the existence or validity of one condition and others saying it's vastly underdiagnosed. Also, psychiatric diagnoses have been used alot in the legal system. I wonder if we have a page on that actually.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, if a news source says "Person X was diagnosed with Condition Y" then it's a reliable source for the claim that they were, in fact, diagnosed, regardless of the validity of said diagnosis. Controversy over the validity of said diagnoses can be discussed in the main article for the condition rather than mentioned in every single article that mentions anyone was diagnosed. While I'm starting to see articles against this comprehensive list, an ASD diagnosis should still be mentioned in the main article for the individual where relevant and reliably sourced, and to claim news articles aren't reliable sources even for that makes me doubt what exactly would be a reliable source. Smartyllama (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News articles from a reliable source (many of these aren't) would be a source for someone being diagnosed. However, as the article itself says, "even a formal diagnosis cannot be taken as certain proof that person has (such a) condition". Therefore, given that the article is titled

original research, and hence useless. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough. Smartyllama (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Hallward's Ghost. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a huge BLP problem and quite likely a coatrack being used to push an agenda. If there were any compelling value in this list other than a suitably maintained category, I might have a bit more hesitation, but the project won't lose anything much if this page goes away. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:50, 30 January 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.