Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political leaders renowned for their integrity (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

List of political leaders renowned for their integrity
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violates various provisos of WP:NOT. The list can never be complete, nor can a viable criteria for inclusion on the list be established. Previous discussion closed as no-consensus after being ARS canvassed. p b  p  03:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete per WP:LISTN. No indication the list, i.e. the grouping, is notable. Agree that inclusion is arbitrary and on dubious grounds: some such as Aung San Suu Kyi are based on the briefest of mentions in a sentence ripped out of context. No chance of ever being complete: I would think every country down the ages has at least as many politicians with integrity as e.g. those from the USA that are listed.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 04:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Utterly subjective inclusion criteria. One person's "righteous leader" is the next person's war criminal... Not to mention, assuming a group of strangers from around the globe can agree that this or that political leader exhibits the unmeasurable trait called "integrity" — at what point is one "renowned" for it rather than merely "well known" for it or "known to have shown it"? This is inherently amorphous and unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete- as inherently subjective, with unclear inclusion criteria. Lists must make a case that their subject is notable; it is not enough to say that all the items in the list are notable (for whatever reason) and therefore any conceivable grouping of them inherits inclusion-worthiness from those items. This list is a prime example of why. Carrite makes an excellent point regrading how we can distinguish a politician famous because of their honesty from one merely perceived to be honest but not famous solely for that reason, or where we should draw the line on that. I also think the list is an inevitable edit war magnet, where supporters of one party will edit war to remove politicians from a rival party and substitute their candidates more to their own liking. Finally, I think the article was extremely lucky to survive last time, as IMO consensus to delete was clearly established. Reyk  YO!  07:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the leaders in the list are notable, suggesting that they are notable "for their integrity" seems like original research. I think the article creator misinterpreted Template:Dynamic list as meaning that a list can indeed be arbitrary inclusion-wise.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The ARS is a wikiproject like any other, and it is not canvassing to post there. It attracts as many delete votes as keep votes most times anyway.  Also, reading through there, I showed up from Warden's talk page, just as I did this time as well, and others said Keep before me.  Anyway, since this is just a rerun of a past discussion where the nominator didn't get his way, I'll just copy over my comments from there.  Honest Abe and others were in fact known for their honesty. Reliable sources confirm this, you able to just look in a college level history textbook, or a printed encyclopedia to confirm the information. Showing a list of such people throughout history is quite encyclopedic. This was something they were famous for, not just some random arbitrary thing.   D r e a m Focus  07:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  07:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As per sources already in the article, the list topic gets coverage even in top tier RSs (such as a book from Oxford University press).  As per the leading political scientist John Mearsheimer  "Every audience and almost every person I have spoken to quickly becomes engaged and excited by the subject [honesty in politicians], and many want to talk at length about it." Compliance with basic content policies makes the list non arbitrary - we need only include a politician if they are described as being famous for their honesty by a reliable source.  As for the speculation that the list will attract edit warriors,  the article has been nice and stable for its entire history,  apart from the two attempts to destroy it. P.S. I saw this AfD from the Colonel's talk, ARS is not even on my watchlist at present. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - "one man's terorist is another man's freedom fighter" i.e. politicians may be described by supporters as having integrity but by opponents as lacking it. This list is therefore completely and uterly pointless. GiantSnowman 08:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per my last delete rationale which is similar to GiantSnowman's rationale as well. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  10:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Inherently and hopelessly subject POV magnet that will result in nothing but constant bickering. Objective inclusion criteria will never be formulated. Topic is non-notable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The page has been remarkably stable since the last discussion and there is not the slightest sign of it being an "edit war magnet" or "constant bickering". Such claims are therefore blatantly false.  The topic is notable, being discussed in numerous sources such as Honest Politics, Politics by Civil Means, and Politicians, honesty and the higher amorality of politics, and therefore passes WP:LISTN.  The nomination introduces no new evidence or argument and there seems to be a disruptive aspect to it, contrary to WP:HARASS, WP:POINT and WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."  Warden (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, I didn't start the first AfD. Secondly, it is perfectly acceptable to renom something that was closed as no consensus at any time, let alone after four months have passed.  Please familiarize yourself with relevant guidelines before accusing another editor of disruption  p  b  p  15:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - per GiantSnowman and Dennis Brown mostly. Yet another list based on single source POV which could be depopulated by the finding of equally reliable sources that suggest otherwise. If I can find a source that suggests Lincoln wasn't as honest as some have suggested, can I remove him from the list? Stalwart 111  12:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't have to look hard, Lincoln is a favourite target of ultra-far-right conservatives, some of whom are apparently still bitter about that whole ending slavery thing. There's even whole books on the subject.  I think this illustrates how silly these POV lists are.  There are no perfect angels in the real world, and even in cases where someone is held up as unassailably heroic or demonically evil, there are always dissenters. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, yes, it was a bit of a loaded question in that sense. Of course there are sources that say otherwise. We've had a bunch of these at AFD of late - just glad people are considering this one logically. Stalwart 111  03:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, essentially per Carrite. History is rarely if ever as black-and-white as this list wants to pretend it is.  Let's look at an example from the list, Cincinnatus, who makes the list for abdicating (twice!) responsibilities as dictator of Rome.  Now, he lived 2500 years before I was born and as a result never showed up to my cocktail parties, but for the sake of this discussion let's imagine he was as the list implies: a really swell guy, grade-A do-gooder, Ned Stark in a toga, a real hoopy frood.  At first glance it seems noble, but if he was so wonderful he could have done a lot more good in office than out of it, and he was replaced by someone who wasn't as awesome.  Did he wisely leave before politics inevitably corrupted him, or did he selfishly avoid responsibility at the cost of the greater good?  Was it morally correct?  One could argue around these points all day without meaningful conclusion.  My point is that Wikipedia has a responsibility not to portray history in these Kindergarten-level good-guy/bad-guy POVs. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately it is impossible to decide entries for such a subject a NPOV/NOR fashion. That the honesty of politicians as a general concept is a notable subject, I'm sure, but when dealing with individual historical figures, it's too murky and subjective. -- cyclopia  speak!  15:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We can specify what reliable sources count. A university level textbook surely would.  The history books of certain award winning notable historians would count perhaps.  Perhaps rename it to List of political leaders well known for their integrity or List of political leaders given ample coverage in reliable sources for their honesty and integrity.  Hmm... need to think of a different name perhaps.   D r e a m Focus  18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete criteria. "renowned" undefined, dramatically different source-ability for subjects crossing literally millenia. Additionally, list topic not individually notable. That X people share a characteristic does not make that characteristic inherently notable. What sources are discussing the topic as a whole? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure OR. As Andrew Lenahan says above, "My point is that Wikipedia has a responsibility not to portray history in these Kindergarten-level good-guy/bad-guy POVs." Quite. I understand that. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculative, and how do we determine whether or not a person can make it onto this list? What makes for integrity and what makes for being renowned? There are also hundreds and hundreds of "political leaders" out there, well-known locally, nationally, internationally, or otherwise. As per above, list will never be complete. If we fail to include certain people, would it be an insult to them? Fails WP:LISTN as well.
 * Integrity is so subjective, and such an opinion. What may seem like a person of integrity to you or to a news source may not seem like a person of integrity to another. There are plenty of people who would say, for example, Obama is a good, honest president, and then there are also plenty of people who say that he is a liar/a bad president etc. How do we maintain such a subjective list? Inclusion/exclusion on the list could end up controversial and result in edit warring. -kikichugirl (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, especially Carrite, GS, Cyclopia. Not much more I can say. Ansh666 07:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Integrity is very POV. Washington kept slaves, allowed them to be whipped etc. He is claimed to have been against slavery, but did not use his position to do anything about it, not very integrous.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, rubbish and essay. Notably, polls find that many Russians feel that Joseph Stalin was less corrupt than later leaders, does that warrant his inclusion in the list? --Soman (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking about The German bloke who won an Iron Cross in WWI for bravery, rebuilt his country, and took his own life rather than be captured.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Topic of article treats integrity as if it were some empirically mensurable quality, analogous to a "list of political leaders who were in office 20 years or longer" or "list of political leaders who wore sideburns whilst in office". The topic is more along the lines of "list of political leaders who were known for being indecisive" or "list of political leaders who had poor taste in music".  Only chance of saving this would be under the title of something as unwieldy as "list of political leaders who were very well renowned indeed for their integrity, with the exception of fringe nutters (and by "nutters" it is meant the people who didn't the hold those leaders in renown, not the leaders themselves, if you see what I mean)". --Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utterly subjective. Ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too subjective, and inherently POV.  Even Abraham Lincoln has been seen by some historians to be, politically, a sharp horse trader.  Requires proof by exhaustion.    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Coming back here today, seeing the overwhelming Deletes, I support speedy close & delete per WP:SNOW. --kikichugirl (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Can never be complete" or "does not have mechanical criteria for inclusion" are not thoughtful reasons for deletion or even sophisticated thinking.  Nothing has changed since the last deletion attempt and people were pleased by the improvements in the article and several switched from delete to keep.  I am seeing some repetition in deletion attempts (pbp for one).  I wonder if there is canvassing by the deleters, not the reverse.  These repeated deletion attempts are vexing and gamey.  I would hope that pbp notified all the "last time" participants...but obviously he did not, as I did not get one.  This is a video game of Wikiprocessery.TCO (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wonder all you like, but you'll not find evidence of my being canvassed because I wasn't, and that accusation is just bad-faith ad-hom in lieu of an actual policy-based reason for keeping this POV-fest. As has been pointed out, PBP didn't nominate the article for deletion last time and is free, per policy, to nominate an article again where an AFD ended in no consensus (which is exactly what happened) and there's no requirement for him to canvass previous participants. Stalwart 111  07:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree; this is completely bad-faith by TCO. I never notify anyone of deletion discussions (except the author when I use Twinkle), and as Stalwart notes, I don't have to.  It's worth noting that many of the deletion votes are people that didn't even participate.  I believe I used the word "viable" rather than "mechanical", and my don't have to be thoughtful since they are in line with the policies and guidelines vis-a-vis what an article of this type should be likes.  TCO's comments are essentially a personal attack, are rife with inaccuracies, and should probably be disregarded  p  b  p  14:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur that TCO is wrong in crying canvassing, but what kind of spectacular doublethink makes you spew nonsense canvassing accusations in the nomination and then scream "bad-faith"! when other users follow your example, Pbp? -- cyclopia  speak!  14:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because Dream Focus posted the AfD to ARS and I didn't post it to any people's talk pages or noticeboards, perhaps? p  b  p  15:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By my count, most of the people who came to this via ARS !voted delete, so trying to characterize that as canvassing seems quite weak. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that posting to ARS is no more canvassing than posting to any noticeboard or wikiproject, this is not an answer, Pbp. -- cyclopia  speak!  15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Incompatible with WP:NPOV. Inclusion criteria are far too subjective.  ‑Scottywong | babble _  21:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Never having understood integrity, and strenuously doubting its very existence, I suspect that a list of examples with references applying the label may provide encyclopedic assistance. - Winterst (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" is not in of itself a reason for keeping or deleting something p  b  p  15:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't quite think that's the definition of "encyclopedic" we use around here - WP:Encyclopedic redirects to WP:NOT. See also WP:UNENCYC. Ansh666 18:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]] ) 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete List is fundamentally, inescapably non-neutral. Any reliable source that asserts a given politician is renowned for their integrity may be just as easily disputed by another equally reliable source, in which case a list that by its nature asserts that individuals in the list are "renowned for their integrity" is a non-neutral list. The list is thus inevitably subjective. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete A very subjective inclusion criteria, and the concept of listing "men of integrity" also feels kind of outdated (as illustrated by the Little George and cherry tree anectote). The article says Mommsen (a 19th century historian) wrote something on this, which I can believe, but I don't think it's an approach that's common among modern historians and political scientists. As such it doesn`t meet the criteria for a stand-alone list. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Criteria for inclusion on this list is varied based on the quotes from the sources. Cited sources speak well of the mentioned leaders, but whether these statements confer or constitute "integrity" is unclear.  There doesn't appear to be a viable move or merge alternative for this content, so I therefore recommend deletion.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally and subjectively, I would keep this list, but the consensus objectively is to delete such ill-definable lists. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite and Kikichugirl. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there are some valid lists on Wikipedia with a subjective basis, such as Albums considered the greatest ever or List of films considered the worst, there is no long standing tradition of multiple reliable sources regularly publishing lists of political leaders with integrity, so I don't see how this article could ever be written to comply with WP:NPOV. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK


 * 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.