Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups widely considered extremist

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

List of groups widely considered extremist
there's no way this could ever be NPOV, and the article certaintly starts that way, with its one member being PETA Sdedeo 23:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme delete because the implication will be 'considered extreme by Western liberals ...' --Doc (?) 23:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as irredeemably POV (although PETA is widely described by media as extremist, but others no doubt beg to differ). 23skidoo 23:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as subjective and POV. Does this qualify for a speedy? Kaibabsquirrel 15:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: We are here to report on the world, and one of the truths about the world is that there are groups that are frequently considered extremist. Recently there has been a pernicious notion that since Wikipedia is not supposed to endorse one POV over another, that Wikipedia should not acknowledge the existence of controversial POVs. In short, I find the nominating statement of "there's no way this could ever be NPOV" to be entirely at odds with the very notion of NPOV, and the only reason I am not supporting the keeping of the current article is because it is currently just one item long and its subject, that of all extremist groups, too broad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The problem is that groups considered "extreamist" today may not be in 10 years, so at the very least its quite time-based -- Ryan Norton T 00:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - cannot be anything but POV. Definition of extremism is totally based on someone's POV from "extremist liberals" to "extremist conservatists" to "extreme environmentalists". At the very least, the list would have to include very copious notes who consider the group extremist, making it bona fide edit war bait. I think we can write about various groups "considered extremist" by defining what they do (ie. sort of "show, don't tell"). - Skysmith 08:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're completely right that an acceptable article on this topic would need copious notes to verify that the groups are "widely" considered extremist.  But there seems to be a common confusion these days between "the subject of the article is a POV, or multiple POVs" and "the article is inherently POV" -- two entirely different things. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:52, 8 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.