Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people described as neoconservatives (second 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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 07:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

List of people described as neoconservatives
Many reasons to delete: This entire list is an inherent WP:AWW violation ("This is a list of prominent public figures frequently referred to as neoconservatives"). At least half the list fails WP:V, and most of the rest are considered "verified" based solely on the fact that they are members of a single think tank. In the past, various people have been randomly added and removed from the list depending on the POV of whatever editor was interested in the page at the time. A good argument can be made that the list's very existence violates WP:NPOV, given that there are several competing nebulous definitions of "neoconservative". And given those competing definitions, there could be libel issues if someone on the list disagrees with his/her listing there. Lastly, such a list can never be truly encyclopedic; it's just a random collection of whatever names have come to mind over time (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Aaron 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails WP:POV.--み使い Mitsukai 17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but seriously clean up. The list is interesting, and not inherently unencyclopedic; problems with WP:NPOV and WP:V could be dealt with after proper cleanup, referencing and deletion of unverifiable entries.  Turning it into something like "list of self-described" neoconservatives may be appropriate, with proper references etc.  ikh (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom--Kalsermar 20:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. "List of self-described..." as suggested by ikh would be useful if complete, but often times you won't hear neoconservatives label themselves that; I think citing self-descriptions would be almost impossible or lead to noticeable (uncitable) absences from the list, rendering it unauthoritative for those aware of this movement and misleading to those seeking information. --Derek 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per POV.Blnguyen 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have heard of people who describe themselves as neoconservatives. If sources can be found for such individuals then limit it to them and keep. If that can't happen then delete.--T. Anthony 02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No way in the world that this can be encyclopaedic. It's a list with arbitrary inclusion criterion, apparently created just for the sake of having such a list. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Very weasel-worded list. I can tell someone I reckon Britney Spears is a neoconservative, and add her? -- Mithent 16:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 1st, why does the "List of Neoconservatives" redirect to the weasel-worded title of the article whose deletion is under debate rather than vice-versa? 2nd is Neoconservative a defined enough term? we do have lots of lists of people, but mostly the lists are pointing to something defined enough that we can attempt to lump people either in the list or out of it (e.g., List of left-handed people where some may debate the existence of handedness or whether a person should or shouldn't be included on the list, at least we know what we're debating). Until we as a community are convinced that "Neoconservatives" means the same something to most people, the list is of no value. Carlossuarez46 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Conserve as it is perfectly possible to maintain a page with good references and citations: Wikipedia is full of them. I fully support removing unsourced entries, but no need to delete. Turnstep 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.208.61 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep if the individuals named have a problem they can edit it it insults no one ... what facts are in dispute each individual named has espoused polcies consistent with the label — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.222.74.246 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.