Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American media figures who have wished for massive destruction in America


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

American media figures who have wished for massive destruction in America
Inheiritly unencyclopediac and POV, a useless list. I can't imagine how this could be salvaged.--Sean|Bla ck 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator.--Sean|Bla ck 04:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article has a couple of problems. (1) It is inherently POV and probably could not be made NPOV. (2) The title is highly misleading if not flat wrong. It is extremely unlikely that the people who made these statement were actually “wishing” for massive destruction in America. These were hyperbolic remarks expressing extreme disdain for certain segments, institutions, or people of America. It’s pretty much the same as all those Hollywood personalities who swore that they would leave the United States if Bush won the election. How many of them actually did so? &spades;DanMS 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV topic that can do nothing but take quotes out of context to make a political point. Andrew Levine 05:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Andrew Levine, though I fear the author may add me to Editors who have voted to delete Lists of American media figures who have wished for massive destruction in America. --W.marsh 05:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the comments above as well as the points I made made on the article talk page. --JJay 05:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.. Start a blog. Durova 06:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems to be a list of quotations, which is specifically called out in WP:NOT. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete subjective, and unmaintanable. Hal Lindsey has little in common with others on the list. --MacRusgail 13:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete XYaAsehShalomX 14:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Makes the internet suck more :) Youngamerican 16:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless we add They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. --Doc ask? 18:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say BJAODN for the title alone, but since the actual article doesn't amuse me, delete. --InShaneee 19:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; there are tons of idiots saying things like this all over the place. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. SchrödingersRoot 20:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quite POV.-- Dak ota     t     e  ''' 20:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per problems mentioned above. Punkmorten 20:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per all. --Blackcap | talk 22:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete... but... if the quotes are all true and verifiable, they are indeed notable and should be mentioned on the article of those who said them. Not a topic for its own article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Quotes should be kept to a minimum in articles. The articles should indicate that the individual is acerbic, and reference the comment if it actually caused significant controversy, but as SchrödingersR said above, lots of people say stuff like that. --DDerby- (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete probably can't be made NPOV. --DDerby- (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2005 (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.