Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of people widely considered eccentric (4th nomination)

Response to Silence -- Guidelines for Keeping
I have no problem with keeping this article if it could be cleaned up, but I think it would take a massive cleanup effort which would have to start with establishing two things.

-What is defined as eccentric according to each society, as it states in the article currently as I write? I think that's overly generous, it should be every person, but that would be even more unwieldy. Eccentricity is a POV just like "normalcy". We'd have that POV into a NPOV for the consensus of Wikipedia users. -What is widely? Over 50%? 66%? "Alot"? Like with consensus issues, it's vague and may cause revert wars in the future if people feel that the article still hasn't reached NPOV.

Maybe the name of the article is the thing slipping things up. With it as it is now, I don't think it ever truly is salvagable. Karmafist 03:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Then suggest alternate names for it. I personally see absolutely nothing wrong with the name. It's certainly not POV; it's about POVs. POV would be "eccentric people"; "people widely considered eccentric" is in no way inherently POV, it just requires some serious research to back up, just as almost all other articles on Wikipedia do. Lacking sources and being POV are not qualifiers for deletion. They're qualifiers for cleanup tags like NPOV and NOR.
 * If you think we should clearly define how much "widely" is, then feel free to try. I seriously doubt it will be a source for much, if any, confusion and dissatisfaction among readers, as the meaning, while vague, is pretty clear and obvious, exactly to the same extent that "noteworthy" is. Wikipedia has no exact standards for what is "noteworthy", just general ideas and case-by-case discussions on the matter. Countless things on Wikipedia function the same way, and this list is one of those things. Just because something can be contested doesn't mean that it should be abandoned altogether; if it did, we'd have to abandon Wikipedia itself!
 * I'd like to also comment on the reasons you gave that this article should be deleted: -Silence 04:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Why delete?

 * Who defines eccentricity? What is considered eccentric? And by who's authority and viewpoint? The closest I've known anyone ever coming to this would be in the DSM IV, but even those definitions are fairly generalized and subjective, which leads me to my next point.
 * The article title clearly states that the criterion for inclusion is not that any one authority or viewpoint consider a person "eccentric", but that numerous noteworthy sources consider a person "eccentric", preferably to the extent that just about everyone who knows of a person will associate that person with eccentricity, or at least be aware that most people do. I'd understand your confusion if the article was "People considered eccentric", as then you might ask who's the one doing the consideration, but the "widely" makes it quite clear that it's a general sense of what people as a whole consider, just as thousands of Wikipedia articles make general claims like "many Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God..." None of that's based on any sort of poll of every Christian ever, it's based on common agreement among just about everyone that that's the case, and sources to support it (though those sources, like Wikipedia, are ultimately merely echoing a general understanding of how people think about a certain topic; the chain of citations has to end somewhere). Also: subjectivity is not grounds for deletion. It's grounds for caution.


 * ''Unlike most articles, this one could eventually become a breeding ground for WP:NPA violations. One user might consider another user "eccentric" or "wierd" and place them on there.
 * First of all, I actually disagree entirely. Very few people are likely to come to this page and add themselves or another user here; it's much more of a problem with thousands of other articles, like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and List of people with disabilities. Usually anyone with a high enough IQ to even use the word "eccentric" will be intelligent enough not to bother with vandalism, especially considering that "eccentric" is not a pejorative description, and especially considering that such vandalism would be totally fruitless, as it would be reverted within minutes and no lasting harm shall be done. But all of this is beside the point, because there's one vitally important thing to keep in mind: succeptibility to vandalism is not grounds for deletion. If it was, we'd have deleted George W. Bush years ago.


 * What defines "widely"? That's another fairly subjective term, "widely" to one person can be entirely different than "widely" to someone else. If anyone has a precedent on what that actually is (I have a viewpoint on my user page, but that's just a viewpoint and not binding towards anything other than that), please let me know.
 * Addressed above. Using subjective terms is not banned on Wikipedia when no better alternative exists, especially when the only two alternatives are to use loosely-defined words or to be POV. In fact, the opposite is the case, and Wikipedia often encourages using words like "widely" that will allow the article to include the proper list of people the article merits without succumbing to technicalities or trivial exceptions that would cripple almost any other title of the page. Sometimes benefiting, interesting, entertaining, and educating the readers is more important than covering every imaginable base, no matter how obscure and tangential. -Silence 04:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)