Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional sports owners considered the worst


 * 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. JForget 00:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

List of professional sports owners considered the worst

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

How does this list exist? It's indiscriminate...it clearly has no chance of being WP:NPOV...and runs the risk of being BLP vio galore. Smashvilletalk 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - inclusion in the article seems to be based on opinion. I don't see a clear definition/cutoff point of 'worst'. Clubmarx (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely subjective and no chance of ever reaching objectivity. An example of the sort of articles that give Wikipedia a bad name. --Falcadore (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - It would be practically impossible to write this in an NPOV way, and it is indeed a huge risk for BLP violations. --Darkwind (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, overly subjective and inherantly POV.  Them From  Space  01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subjective and indiscriminate. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely subjective list violating WP:NPOV. Who is it who "considers" these owners the worst? It's not even clear why some of the owners in this article are listed as among the worst. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well-sourced doesn't always mean a keep, and I can't envision any way that this could be fixed to keep it from violating Wikipedia's policies about point-of-view. TMC1982, who is an editor of long-standing (which makes it a surprise to see a POV article), did put in a lot of work on this, and some of the information and sources should be mentioned in the articles about Angelos, Glass, Hicks, etc. or about their teams (Orioles, Royals, Rangers).  Given that it's about them being "the worst" in some aspect, there may be WP:BLP. Mandsford (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment before i weigh in, here are other articles with similar scope: List of films considered the worst, List of television series considered the worst, List of video games notable for negative reception, List of songs topping polls for worst songs. 3 have been afd multiple times. The main difference i see is that THIS article is about persons, often living persons, where BLP is a concern, where the others are about creative works, where there is only NPOV to consider. I was swayed by the arguments at the film article that its not the "worst" idea for an article, as long as the sourcing is multiple and very strong for each listing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between taking the opinions of many publications (bad films and TV series are an example of drawing upon surveys that have been done over the years) and citing a footnote to one person who says "So-and-so was the worst such-and-such ever". Put another way, if lots of critics say that Plan Nine From Outer Space is bad, then it's not one person's POV; if Roger Ebert is the only person who says that Plan Nine From Outer Space, it is one person's POV. Mandsford (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, any sourcing for this subject would have to be huge consensus among commentators, ie a survey "loser". And i agree with your other comments above. yes, we do have some surveys on films, where we probably dont have the same about sports owners.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete despite there being similar articles kept, the sourcing of individual critics comments is not enough to justify an article (per mandsfords comments).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Awesome POV issues are inherent. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - Even the title is weaselly worded because there's no subject to "considered". It would be written in active tense as "The Worst Professional Sports Owners", and when put that way the POV is even clearer (as though it wasn't before). A list of the "worst" whatevers, like the worst films, could work but there should be a requirement of multiple sources. Shadowjams (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with all the "deletes" above. There is not a neutral way to adequately reference a list like this. Xtzou ( Talk ) 18:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete-as per Xtzou--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 15:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G10 attack page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - This is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Since it also relates to living people and is solely intended to disparage its subjects, it certainly should qualify (per D. Eppstein) for G10 "speedy delete". Justin W Smith talk/stalk 20:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Even the title itself violates the policy on weasel words (i.e., ). Justin W Smith talk/stalk 20:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one could rescue such "information" by creating a category for "Criticized Sports Owners" that has as a criteria for inclusion that the article contain a section for well-documented criticisms of the owner. (Since every sports owner is criticized on a regular basis, this might be hard to discriminate from the category of sports owners.) Again, policies relating to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would need to be considered. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be hardpressed to find an owner that hadn't been criticized. Even in reliable sources. --Smashvilletalk 23:29, 1 May 2010 (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.