Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people widely considered eccentric


 * 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.  Sango 123  00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

List of people widely considered eccentric
This list is unmaintanable, inherently POV, inherently unverifiable, mostly unsourced and has been constantly metastasizing since its inception. It is less of an encyclopedia article and more of a sort of stream-of-consciousness laundry list of names of people that any editor has ever personally considered to be strange. It's an eyesore. The result of the previous AfD was "no consensus". Nandesuka 03:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently POV, perpetually incomplete, totally indiscriminate, and absolutely useless. How this has survived so long is a boggle. Opabinia regalis 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently POV and for a large part original research. -- Koffieyahoo 04:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. -AED 04:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per all of the above. -- Kjkolb 04:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV is inscribed in the very title. Daniel Case 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete List is unmaintanable and original research. --Ageo020 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Defining normalcy by shining a light on those unconforming to the 'rules' does not belong on Wikipedia. Throw 06:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as entirely original research and inherently POV. Molerat 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. All of the previous keep votes failed to address how the people on the list are verifiable.  --ColourBurst 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete "widely considered" is a POV term in and of itself. Konman72 09:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, originally researched indiscriminate POV list with no hope of ever being complete. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 09:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, strong POV list, original research, and unencyclopedic in nature. --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per precedent. Nominating articles for deletion over and over and over again, until the single result acceptable to those who want it deleted is achieved, becomes monotonous.  At some point the lack of consensus that the article should be deleted ought to be recognized and the matter ended. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite all the previous AfDs, precedents are not binding, and the last AfD was almost a year ago. This is a perfectly valid AfD nomination. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is pure original research because it at the very heart based upon an admittedly arbitrary criteria. Lists based on arbitrary criteria, particularly criteria determined by Wikipedia contributors, need to go.  Beyond that, there is the long standing lack verifiability around this list.--Isotope23 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per - by now - just about everyone. Sandstein 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My preference is Delete. If kept, move all the unsourced entries to the article's Talk page&mdash;which at this point is all of them, effectively blanking the article. State at the top of the article that entries are to be inserted only if accompanied by source citations, meeting reliable source guidelines, which describe the person as "eccentric," using that word. The list then becomes a list of people who have been called eccentric, with source citations showing who called them that. Ideally enough of the source should be quoted so the reader can judge whether the person meets the reader's own criterion for eccentricity. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, and if this is done it should be moved to List of people who have been referred to as eccentric.--Isotope23 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. --Satori Son 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete OR, POV, and no slightest definition of what eccentric even means. Half the people on this list, I have no idea what's supposed to be eccentric about them. Fan-1967 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, and please, please, please delete most other "considered" lists along with it, like Place names considered unusual, Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever, List of video games considered the worst ever, List of jokes considered clichés, and List of incidents famously considered great blunders. wikipediatrix 23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Changed vote, explanation follows.--T. Anthony 05:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And not: David Koresh and Charles Manson and Jesus of Nazareth? One man's eccentric is another's messiah. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This either shows a disdain for religion or a lack of understanding of history. Either way the people you name are not self-described eccentrics nor did they get famous because they're eccentric. Koresh got famous as a cult leader, Manson for crimes, and Jesus as a religious leader/thinker. I know that Joshua A. Norton is seen as some kind of religious something to Discordians, but he did not see himself as any kind of religious anything as far as I know. Also it's unclear if Discordianism is an actual religion.--T. Anthony 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a list of self-described eccentrics we're debating? I don't think so. These aren't people who got famous for being eccentric either. That's not what's going on here. History is in the eye of the beholder, too, when such soft labels as "eccentric" are thrown around. Some guy who calls himself the son of God and runs around in the desert with 12 men, eschews sex, but hangs out with prostitutes, seems eccentric by most standards (and if you disagree, that just proves the point that there is no subjective criteria for inclusion). Carlossuarez46 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying this list could be made into a list of self-described eccentrics and people who got famous for eccentricity. It'd take radical culling, but it's not impossible.--T. Anthony 03:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought after doing a bit of work I realized fixing this list is way too difficult as it has too much dross. It would be more work to fix it than to just start a better eccentric list at List of people who have been referred to as eccentric.--T. Anthony 04:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as unverified, unverifiable, unsourced, potentially libellous, against WP:BIO, ill-defined, unencyclopedic, non-notable, original research, POV listcruft. Vizjim 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete as inherently POV. Too bad; some of these are fascinating, but rules are rules. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator this list is far too subjective for Wikipedia standards. Yamaguchi先生 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete —  WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At the risk of complicating matters: it is, however, easy to create an objective criterion: "people described as 'eccentric' by a source meeting WP:RS". Dpbsmith (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A legitimate list on this topic could exist, but creating such a list (per, e.g., Dpbsmith's suggested approach) would involve melting this one down to its component bits and casting it wholly anew. I agree with Coredesat about the previous V/AfDs:  they were a long time ago, they are not binding and, moreover, if they prove anything it's that Eventualism just hasn't worked out here.  Anville 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Vizjim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV, no solid criteria for inclusion. --Scienceman123 21:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Such a list may be publishable, but not in an encyclopedia. Piccadilly 22:44, 11 August 2006 (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.