Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases (4th nomination)

List of fictional diseases

List of fictional diseases (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)

This list still seems highly arbitrary, the single media references all seem quite obscure within heir own fancruft, and the multiple media examples...vampirism and werewolves aren't 'diseases' and when I check the articles the only connexion/references to diseases are to those real disease which may have helped the original stories manifest. Zombification is considered a disease in some of the media that focuses on it, but it's still a small amount of that media. From looking a this list, zombificaion is the only valid entry (aha, I forgot Hanahaki disease and lurgy, so three) so no need for a list. Halbared (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Halbared (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• I'm... not 100% sure deleting this content is the best way forward. Look at Special:WhatLinksHere/List of fictional diseases.
  Some people who use Wikipedia aren't adults, and for some, it's their only source of information. Imagine a teenage girl from a third world country who feels pressure to have sex with someone as a treatment to relieve Bonerplasia. Imagine someone who's been told that Climate Change Denial Disorder is a real disease. Wikipedia isn't Snopes, but we do have a function in combating disinformation.
  Further, there's a Category:Fictional diseases. This list arguably meets WP:CLN as a navigational list.
  Overall, I'm uneasy about deleting this and would rather we did something else.—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  If kept, I feel that we should restore this revision.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Regardless of the outcome of the discussion in terms of whether this is kept as a stand-alone article or not, I am opposed to restoring that version of the article. See the article's talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I think we should keep it limited to diseases where there's at least one reliable source discussing them in detail. Of course we can keep the ones that are independently notable, but I also feel like there's potential for other diseases to at least be mentioned in the list. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. The notability of the diseases should be proved to be included in the list. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  And I don't. Lists don't have to be lists of notable things: see WP:LISTN. We used to have a problem, historically, with people who had a marketing motive wanting to add their non-notable company or product to a list on Wikipedia, so we did concoct some rules and guidelines to manage this behaviour. But that isn't a consideration here. Nobody's trying to advertise cooties or bonerplasia. The consideration is fighting disinformation. If someone googles a made-up disease, they need to get to a page that tells them it's not a real thing. This is that page and part of the purpose of it is to reduce harm to the public, so we should be completionist about this.—S Marshall T/C 09:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  That sounds more like List of diagnoses characterized as pseudoscience than List of fictional diseases, no? TompaDompa (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  No. Cooties and bonerplasia aren't pseudoscience (see the definition of pseudoscience in that article).—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  I was thinking more about the notion that The consideration is fighting disinformation. If someone googles a made-up disease, they need to get to a page that tells them it's not a real thing. This is that page and part of the purpose of it is to reduce harm to the public. I don't know that somebody who googles, say, "faecal encephalopathy" needs to end up at Wikipedia's List of fictional diseases to tell them that it's a humorous medical-sounding way of saying "shit-for-brains". I also don't think that a roughly 200-kB list of 400-ish different fictional diseases is a particularly good way of fighting disinformation. The idea of the article (going by the WP:LEAD) would appear to be listing diseases that only appear in fiction, rather than listing diseases that are made-up in a more broad sense (not real, basically). But I suppose this discussion should be had at the article's talk page—as was already the case. TompaDompa (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Fictional diseases have been discussed as a group in the sources provided in the article; the page also serves a navigational purpose. The entries of the list are sourced, for example, this paper describes vampirism as a disease. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The list is definitely not complete (where is, for example, spattergroit from Harry Potter?) but the sources definitely demonstrate notability per Kelob. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep per last nomination. This has plenty of sources brought up in prior noms that still have not been incorporated that show notability. This needs work done, not deletion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep list is interesting, but more importantly serves important historic value and has sources of major fictional diseases or ailments such as "zombification", it would lose a lot and be quite messy as a merge to articles elsewhere. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Notable list. When I nominated it for deletion in 2018 it was so, so much worse and it could be argued it passed the WP:TNT threshold. Nowadays it has been heavily pared down and is relatively inoffensive. I do not think "ligma" should be listed there, however, as it's more of a joke than something that has been mentioned in fiction as a disease. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - AfD is not for clean up, and it's not so terribly bad for TNT. Move on folks, or you'll get pedantritus. Bearian (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Any fictional disease that has its own article, should be listed here. A valid list article. Dream Focus 23:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it is an interesting list, and I feel like there is room for improvement. Deleting it wouldn't accomplish anything. Ajheindel (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

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.