Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Offensive comments by famous people


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Article now available at User:Violetriga/inprogress/Offensive comments by famous people violet/riga (t) 12:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Offensive comments by famous people

 * — (View AfD)

WP:NOT This seems like a fairly arbitrary collection of indiscriminate, even if offensive, trivia. The comments may be noteworthy enough for the individual bio entries, but not for a separate entry Cripipper 18:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems indiscriminate and completely arbitrary. Just some recent examples given on what could be a potentially immense list. Defining "offensive comments" will probably involve insoluble NPOV problems too. Probably WP:OR. --Folantin 18:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT, WP:NOT. Moreschi Deletion! 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not supposed to be a list, so that claim is simply false. The article is a general look at offensive remarks made by people in the spotlight, and serves as a central place to link to major scandals or frequent abusers.  The article is a summary, not an indiscriminate list, and should be given time to develop.  violet/riga (t) 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete seems indiscriminate. Every Howard Stern show statement should be included. TonyTheTiger 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to have every single example, just samples of famous controversies. violet/riga (t) 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Famous to whom? Offensive to whom? Therein lies the problem. --70.72.19.133 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Folantin. Provides absolutely no criteria as to what is "offensive" or what constitutes "famous" - the article is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Agent 86 20:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Offensive is in the eye of the beholder.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If a comment was reported as being offensive then it's fine to call it offensive. violet/riga (t) 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zoe. --70.72.19.133 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per TonyTheTiger. It should also be noted that the only Keep voter so far is the creator of the article. JuJube 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the past, and as far as I know, the present, the creator is allowed to express an opinion here. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they are meant to declare it. Cripipper 22:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't have to - it hardly makes a difference! violet/riga (t) 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, as per How to Discuss an AFD, Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article. -- Whpq 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that you have to. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zoe Leemorrison 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Janneman 05:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per violet/riga. Article ought to be improved rather than deleted. Ekantik talk 14:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; moreover it violates WP:OR; and moreover some famous people like Hitler deliberately used offensive commments so often that it is impossible to describe all these comments in one article :-) .--Ioannes Pragensis 15:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please highlight exactly what part of WP:OR it violates.
 * "Articles may not contain (...) any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments". Please sign your comments here.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a de facto incompelte list being called an article. The examples are arbitrary, and without the examples, the article becomes "Offensive remarks by famous people can get them in trouble." -- Whpq 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's an article that gives examples of people famous for different reasons who have caused wide-scale controversy through their words. violet/riga (t) 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - and as stated in the nomination, these examples are an arbitrary selection, for which each example would more properly placed in the article about the individual. Your claim that this article is a collection of examples means it fails WP:NOT (also as stated in the nomination).  Without the examples, there is no article.  -- Whpq 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It illustrates the power of words that people in the spotlight can have, and is certainly allowed to use examples to illustrate the problems that offensive remarks can have. The claim is therefore false.  violet/riga (t) 17:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: No offence intended ;), but I am just not convinced that there is much need for an encyclopedia entry that essentially says: Offensive comments offend people and can get you into trouble. Here are some famous examples... Cripipper 18:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as there are many articles I could name, but I feel that, with a little more attention, this could become a good article. violet/riga (t) 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. This will either be an arbitrary sample, an endless list, or a theoretical observation of the matter, explaining how the mechanisms work. Only the later is a valid article, but currently we have four, very vague and trivial lines about this. This will not grow into what it could be, therefore delete it. Str1977 (smile back) 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subjective and unmanageable. Dahn 00:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per above.-- C  J   King  00:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CSD. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not entirely without merit, but not sustainable either. Biruitorul 01:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subjective, and would be impossible to properly maintain. They'd look bette in each individual's articles anyway. -- Wizardman 05:55, 11 January 2007 (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.