Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people widely considered eccentric/2005 September

 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 no consensus. Woohookitty 11:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

List of people widely considered eccentric
WP:NOT Section 1.7.2: No lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, part of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" excludes this list. It even says that the people listed have no meaningful association with each other, as it expressly states that eccentricity is defined relative to a person's social environment and as such they're all being judged eccentric by different standards - which means they really have nothing in common. Added to which it arguably meets the "idiosyncratic non-topic" criterion in the deletion policy and, I believe, has no encyclopedic value, and I think it's clear that this entry should be deleted. The Literate Engineer 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the article's third VfD/AfD; the first was in June 2003, and the second was in December 2004. (Back then, it was called "List of notable eccentrics".) What I said in the second deletion debate still applies: even though there isn't an absolutely precise definition of "eccentricity" that satisfies everyone, that doesn't mean we can't write an accurate, NPOV article about historical figures who have often been perceived as "eccentric". Yes, eccentricity is a vague concept that's open to wide interpretation, but so are terrorism and love. Should we delete those articles? In response to the assertion that this article violates WP:NOT, it does only if we adhere to the absolute letter of the law. An example of a "list or repository of loosely associated topics" would be, say, "List of interesting facts".   [  +t,  +c ,  +m  ] 03:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The comparison to terrorism and love is a false one, I think. If this were the article eccentricity (behavior) I'd agree with you, but it's not: it's a list of people.  And without a precise definition of what links those people, the list is what I call pointless.  No, we shouldn't delete terrorism, but we should delete List of people accused of performing terrorism, and we shouldn't delete love but we should delete List of people who love.  It's not about whether or not we can write the article, it's about whether or not we should even try, and in this case, I think we shouldn't.  And I don't think it's instruction creep or a matter of adhering just to the letter of the policy, either.  I think the spirit of that section of WP:NOT is that lists should not be made unless there is a compelling reason to make it (something stricter than the actual wording), and I don't see a compelling reason to have this list.  The Literate Engineer 04:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, but "terrorism" is very easy to define. Terrorism is whatever non-Merkins do that George W. Bush doesn't like. &mdash; J I P | Talk 15:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Triple jeopardy. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. DES (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Coment. Is there any reason this couldn't be merged, somehow, with category:notable eccentrics? Cnwb 04:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Category for eccentric was deleted - Skysmith 10:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I never saw this article before but I think it is very interesting. The list is organized by subgroups and tells you a little about who each person is.  The category would not be very good at the former (you would have to create–and then individually open–sub-catergories rather than see the people on one page) and does not allow the latter at all.  -- DS1953 04:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite interesting. Penelope D 05:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No universal standard for eccentricity. --80.222.74.5 06:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I suggest that this article meets the criterion for keeping an article listed in the VfD guidelines: "The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories". My reading is that this article only needs to meet one criterion for being kept to qualify as encyclopaedic. Maybe what we need is a concerted effort to cite some references to validate the assertion made by including someone on this list, not deletion? Hugh Mason 07:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep no indication that it meets deletion criteria. Trollderella 07:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it meets several. Aside from the sections of WP policy that the nominator mentioned, this article also flies in the face of WP:NPOV. While that isn't technically a criterion for deletion, the fact that the entire article hinges on the author's POV makes it so. Soltak | Talk 19:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Andy Mabbett 09:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencycolpedic. -- Kjkolb 11:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, interesting and notable subject. james gibbon  11:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete No lists or repositories of loosely associated topics --tranquileye 11:40:44, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was skeptical of this article, but the opening paragraphs clearly delineate the criteria. Just because eccentricity is culture-relative doesn't make this article problematic. Seems harmless if... dare I say... eccentric? Sdedeo 14:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Feeling kind of itsy whether or not the thing should stand, but I think it's still an interesting article in itself. So, let it be. --Wwwwolf 16:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but have the author save it their own space if they like. Two reasons: First: I believe Faber and Penguin have published books on eccentrics, but that does not make it a viable encyclopedia topic. Second: We are all by definition a little off centre - whose exactly centered (well maybe the Delhi Llama)? I surely want my name on that list there. It's a good article though and a shame to waste it. Alfredo the Sane Alf 16:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-encyclopedic owing to vagueness, and almost completely unreferenceable. Any available reference would simply the POV of whoever wrote the reference &mdash; unless someone can conjure psychologists who have diagnosed people with "eccentricity". The first voter's remark is revealing: they might indeed qualify for articles for some other reason. But that doens't mean they qualify for a list. -Splash 18:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a completely useless POV list that would be almost impossible to maintain Soltak | Talk 19:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Soltak. I like his wording of it, too. Rob Church Talk 19:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this interesting article. It's well-written and well-thought out, therefore putting to rest my concern that it might have been an attack page. --Idont Havaname 19:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete eccentricity is unmeasurable so "widely considered eccentric" means every single item is POV, even if sources could be cited, which they have not. --TimPope 19:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Quotes: Eccentricity is necessarily defined relatively and deviate in a significant way from the accepted norms of their society. The article itself is letting everybody know that its content is POV. :) What are the accepted norms of a society? --Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Selection is hopelessly POV. ManoaChild 20:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. How many times has this been up for VFD? David | Talk
 * Obviously not enough as it still exists. Soltak | Talk 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Groeck 21:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete List of X are mostly speculation and opinion mongering articles. Jachin 21:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep triple jeopardy, and this list is itself notable. Klonimus 21:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Everybody has their weird quirks. Singling those people out is inherently POV. --Apostrophe 22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unreferenced and unreferencable, inherently POV: Widely by whom? What is centric (normal) and who is to define it? What is the difference between eccentric and mad? --Doc (?) 23:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above --195.92.168.166 23:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting and useful article, which clearly has some value. When I first came across it, I spent an hour reading about the different people on it. It's doing more good than harm to the Wikipedia. Some of the people who are voting delete make it sound like the term eccentric is so vague that nobody even knows what the term possibly means. This is clearly absurd. Eccentricity may not have a cut-n-dry definition but neither do many mental disorders. It's very possible to compile a decent list of eccentric people just as it is with people who have, say, Aspergers. Jason Quinn 00:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV. A lot of work has gone into this and I agree it isn't an attack page. But it seems to range from people whe were a little quirky to professional class clowns to people with genuine mental illness, and therefore is a rather curious, subjective and unhelpful way to categorise people. Sabine's Sunbird 01:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Sean Curtin 02:15, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs watching for POV-pushing, of course - Skysmith 10:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Arguments such as "eccentricity is not measurable" or "unreferenceable" hold no weight here. The criteria for inclusion isn't whether or not the person actually is eccentric; it's only whether they are frequently referred to as eccentric.  It's very easy to find references to "eccentric" people in the mass media and in history books.  Anyway, I think this article is useful; I enjoyed browsing through the list of names and clicking on unfamiliar ones to see what sort of odd behaviour they're known for. —Psychonaut 18:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would not consider this to be a "list of loosely associated topics". -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Very intersting and useful artical.  Guerberj 21:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate self for list, considered eccentric by people in at least four (maybe up to twenty) nations and in at least fifteen (maybe up in the forties) USA states, then delete as unencyclopedic list for several of the reasons listed earlier. Barno 23:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and also Hitler could have been considered a loving person for "defending" the Germans from the "evil" of the Jews, although most people including myself do not think of Hitler as a loving person.[[Image:Peru flag large.png|35px]] Jobe 6  15:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As useful as many of our other lists (List of fictional frogs) and it seems coordinated enough. Whoever created it better be ready for the deluge of crap, I'm not watching it :) --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 04:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as above. Nothing is black and white; no one can be universally called anything. But the whole point of this list is to document those widely considered eccentric. I think that it has purpose, as long as it is vetted well. IINAG 18:07, 2, September 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.