Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There seems to be a rough consensus that are article is utlizing synthesis to push a POV and/or engage in original research. –MuZemike 23:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Previous AFD: Articles for deletion/List of charismatic leaders

Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC) (categories) The subject is way to broad this list can include every politician, Religious leader and three quarter of our BLP and Long Dead person BIOS. I understand why some one may find this useful idea for a category as is it is way to broad and Reeks of OR and POV. IF we limit it too people that only Sociologists (As Weber is the Socio Realm) note as fitting "charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority" such this page might have hope. but now From the looks we have everyone and his brother listing people they find Charismatic with no relation to Sociological theory of Weber


 * Weak Delete As it stands now, this is pure original synthesis, although nothing that can't be cured by a rename that refers to charismatic authority. Lose the personal judgment about whether someone thinks somebody meets Max Weber's criteria, give it a sensible title, and one would have a well-sourced article about leaders described in other sources as charismatic.  Mandsford 14:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep To quote from the previous AFD: "The list has a very clear criterion for list member inclusion ("as defined by Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority), and each list member has a reliable source as a reference." It isn't vague at all. If there are any entries that don't meet the criteria they should be removed. That would seem to address the nominator's concern.   Will Beback    talk    21:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, I am concerned because the list should include every religious leader since the writing of the Vedas could be put here. this makes a list though clearly defined criteria is no excuse to have such a unwieldy list. And how we define whose on the List?
 * People who are said by sociologists as Fitting "the Weberian Model of Charisma?"
 * People Who are said by sociologists to be charismatic?
 * Anyone who we can find who has been Referred to as Charismatic by a RS?

These are the issues with this list Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that the classification is attributed to one person just adds more WP:POVRussianReversal (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Max Weber essentially created the definition of a "charismatic leader", and the term is now used by scores of scholars. The name appears in the title to make it very clear that the criteria is precise. I'm not sure what POV is supposed to be expressed.   Will Beback    talk    04:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as Will Beback says, this is the key original mrsning of the phrase, and excellent sources are present for its applicability to these items.    DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Synthesis. If Weber had made a list of charismatic leaders then it should be placed in the article about charismatic leaders.  TFD (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reduce list to Weber's own picks, then decide if it's worth keeping. Here's the case when thousands of PhD papers, taken as a whole, can not be collated into a uniform representation of academic opinion. Each author has their own margin of tolerance (not to mention political agendas), and taken together they have just as much sense as the "list of hottest dishes" or "list of cool chicks". Inappropriate synthesis. East of Borschov (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR, POV. Non-encyclopedic. Possibly agree with "reduce to Weber's own picks", but is that worth keeping? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per timneu22. i doubt the list would be encyclopedic if trimmed, but im not going to find out myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2010 (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.