Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with hepatitis C

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 Keep - there seems to be a concern that it is possible for it to breach WP:BLP, but that can be policed within the article and is not a reason for deletion in itself unless concerns over entries are not addressed when raised (on that note: the reference in the Pamela Anderson entry should be looked at - it is perhaps more detailed than required) Yomangani ^talk 15:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with hepatitis C

A list of people having a disease, seems to me, not beeing encyclopedic. _→AzaToth 13:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as long as criteria are specified, for the same reason we have lists of already famous people who have died in plane crashes or have HIV. It's a useful list for research and adds way more as a reference than a category could. It's not indiscriminate (as long as we keep it to otherwise notable people) and it's verifiable, as long as all of these people's status is public. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ASDFGHJKL 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, how important is this? Famous people with Hepatitis C? This, to me, is a useless article. How many people want to know this information anyways? PS: If this is kept, please reaname the article, "List of notable people with hepatitis C" since their isn't any ordanry people on the list. --ASDFGHJKL 00:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on naming conventions explicitly rejects that naming style. All people in wikipedia lists must be notable. Colin°^Talk 07:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Night Gyr. MER-C 13:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As creator you'll know my opinion so I'll just add a little background history FYI. The article was created as a result of discussion at Talk:Hepatitis C#Steven Tyler and previous discussions which have been collated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#Notable patients. Relevant (proposed) guidelines are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles). There are certainly differences of opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine so it will be interesting to see what a wider set of editors think. Colin°^Talk 14:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This list was created at my suggestion. It follows the same format as List of notable brain tumor patients and List of people with epilepsy, both of which are WP:FL featured lists. This information has value as an educational tool for putting a human face on a serious illness and for awareness-raising. Before I became a Wikipedian two charities requested an earlier version of the brain tumor list from me. It's good awareness information. Also see List of HIV-positive people, which is now in peer review and close to WP:FLC. Durova 14:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As above, I believe it's good awareness info and useful for research. Pursey 15:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem with those lists is that they are often an unsourced mess. This list definitely isn't. Garion96 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. There are problems with all sorts of lists as articles in Wikpedia which are regularly aired, but in addition this involves personal medical information which I think adds a moral dimension. Apart from HIV and brain tumours already mentioned, I have only found two other similar articles: List of people with epilepsy and List of people with heterochromia, the latter with only 15 real people. I'm not convinced that any of these are necessary. What next? List of people with gonorrhea? Emeraude 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in order for this information to meet WP:V and WP:RS, this information has to be voluntarily released either by the patient or posthumously by the patient's family. Also please see my other comments below. Durova 02:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as long as it is sourced and adheres to biography guidelines, this kind of think could indeed serve it's function. Otherwise we'll get info like this flying all over the place. I think this is not a clearcut case of uncyclopedic info.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedic, informative. Now I know not to share needles with Natasha Lyonne. Or Larry Hagman. Caknuck 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why on earth should 'famous' people with this (or any other) disease be listed over and above non-famous people with this (or any other) disease? A ridiculous, totally unencyclopedic list from the 'Hello' magazine school of sycophancy and intrusion. Marcus22 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Vote change to Weak Delete per good points for keeping made by Durova - but I still dislike the idea and find it rather unencyclopedic Marcus22 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Comment all of these entries are people who meet WP:BIO and whose cases have been confirmed through published sources. Since medical information is legally private (in the U.S. and probably most other countries), these are individuals who have chosen to make their cases public. The brain tumor patients list met an eager reception within the patient/caregiver/charitable community before it came to Wikipedia. On a purely human level this information is comforting - people who face a serious life-changing (or life-ending) ailment like to learn that they aren't alone. There's also a value to parents and educators: several of these diseases are common among children (brain tumors are the leading form of childhood cancer death in the U.S.) and this sort of list is a resource to teachers who want to develop innovative classroom lessons so that affected children aren't unduly stigmatized. Durova 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak and reluctant keep Whatever diseases or health problems people have should be between themseves and their doctor. That said, this is a well-sourced list, and if the media sees this as a newsworthy thing to report on, it's not our place to cast judgement upon that as right or wrong. Unfortunate keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's a useful list and it cites its sources, which makes vandalization difficult. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't give a rip how well documented it is. Wikipedia should not become the Stasi Files listing personal medical information of living people like this. I just don't like the whole concept. Deet 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC) I'm changing to abstain.[reply]

Comment Comparisons with Hello magazine or secret police files are unfair. The sources used are from reliable media, not tabloid tittle-tattle and gossip. If you look at this list, plus the HIV/Epilepsy/Brain Tumor ones, you will see that many of the (still living) notable individuals involved want this information to be very public: they give interviews and go on awareness campaigns The stigma attached to certain chronic conditions gives grief to those with the condition and may well be leading to people remaining undiagnosed. Charitable organisations actively seek out celebrities to give a known face to their awareness campaigns. I can appreciate the yuck factor reactions to seeing such a list on a "drive-by AfD". Hep C is the leading cause of liver transplant in the US and known as a silent killer - since many are unaware of their infection and discover only when in end-stage liver failure. Those two facts are given examples in this list. Listing undisclosed "personal medical information" is not the intention or purpose of this list. Colin°^Talk 07:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of this information is already available publicly, by the voluntary disclosure of the patient or surviving family, so this really doesn't bear comparison to the Cold War East German secret police. Durova 03:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Durova above. Yours, Smeelgova 04:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, as per the reasons given by the other users, who stated their case much better than I could. Chris Buckey 16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This is protected health information and confidential under HIPPA. There is absolutely no way of telling whether the patient voluntarily released this information or not unless WP collected release of information forms from everyone on the list. Unethical and unencyclopedic. Having a list of people with the disease is no more helpful for advocacy or letting people know how serious the disease is that can't be done in the main HepC article. Leuko 21:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this information was stolen or leaked from health insurance companies or health service organisations, then this law might be relevant. It wasn't and it isn't. Wikipedia must, of course, take great care with information about living persons, particularly where it might be considered negative. As such verification from reliable sources is essential. Colin°^Talk 07:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you ascertain the original source of the information? Maybe some overzealous paparrazi... In any case, I still don't see the benefit to society of posting this type of list on WP. It is not going to destigmatize the disease among lay people, and gives the impression that only famous people with the disease are important enough to be mentioned. Leuko 19:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is hopefully covered by using reputable news sources, who have editorial teams and lawers checking what they write. The list generally uses old news, so anything legally unsound would have been pulled off the web site a while ago. A negative tabloid story should definately not be used (but a "Sold my story to the tabloids" interview or biography might). Your last point is true of all of Wikipedia and other media: only the famous get noted. We don't list the members of your local cricket club, and your gran is never going to get an obituary in a national newspaper. Celebrity, whether you like it or not, is a fact of life and does have its uses. Colin°^Talk 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These people are well known and their HCV status is relevant. Xdenizen 01:50, 25 October 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.