Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hypocrites

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 05:39, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

List of Hypocrites

POV-hell. The article name is not what the first line reads atm: A list of famous individuals and organizations alleged by some to have acted hypocritically at one time or another. Who is a hypocrite is POV. But Who has ever been alleged by some of being a hypocrite is not POV, since sources of the allegations can be dug up. But, man, that could be a long and rather uninteresting list.

So I vote Delete on an article with this name. Secondary move to List of famous individuals and organizations alleged by some to have acted hypocritically at one time or another, but I'd probably vote delete on that too as being unencyclopedic. Shanes 15:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Next we can expect to see List of people who have acted perversely at one time or another. etc. this is a useless POV list. biased and boring.--Idleguy 15:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as totally and unsalvagably POV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, written entirely by 63.202.172.90 in a single edit, reads like a soap box, and borderline unencyclopedic. As it stands, it's baseless POV soap box ranting and doesn't belong on WP. Cburnett 15:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- I've laid out my reasons on the hypocrisy talk page. -- Temtem 16:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. One of those lists that you could add everybody to. Mother Theresa, Saint Peter, Nelson Mandela, Jesus, even Bob Geldof, nobody would escape. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic delete. Not only impossible to categorize but insanely non-neutral POV. How this could ever be considered encyclopedic is beyond me. Onlyemarie 16:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, and too broad. List of famous individuals and organizations alleged by some to have acted hypocritically at one time or another would encompass just about every biographical article in Wikipedia.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. DJ Clayworth 16:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but merge the examples from movies and literature into hypocrisy. Martg76 17:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Where appropriate, I agree with the merge. Hypocrisy needs some examples and those in film & literature are likely to be less debatable and much less POVish (the whole fiction bit). Cburnett 17:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with the above. (Selective merge/delete.) Samaritan 20:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge/delete also concur Kappa 16:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV.Feydey 18:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently POV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- POV - Longhair | Talk 21:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV, or move to List of People. --Carnildo 22:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could as well be "List of people even peripherally famous in one extent or another" or something like that. POV pusher magnet - Skysmith 10:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly POV and utterly unmaintainable. Some selective merging in the film and literature categories is a good idea. - Lucky 6.9 18:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am so proud to stand alone as a lone voice in the wilderness of Wikipedia's decay into NPOV Encarta-ish blandness enforced by all the self-appointed NPOV Nazis. Quirkiness and POV is what keeps things interesting. That one cannot any longer cite evidence that there is even one liar or hypocrite alive on planet Earth without the NPOV Nazis; censoring such information is just another sign of these Orwellian times. ---- 63.205.185.5 (sig added by Cburnett 03:50, May 7, 2005 (UTC))

Delete - It'd be nice if, one day, Wikipedia were widely respected enough to be permissible as a cited source for academic research. It's articles like this one, however, that make it an impossibility. Lets try to keep in mind that this is a database of knowledge, not a soapbox. (note: please stop editting my posts. edit your own. there's entirely too much usage of IPs on this website as it is, I'd rather not advertise it more than I absolutely have to on here.)
- Note: The above was added by an anon with serious objections to having his IP address added as a sig. --Carnildo 01:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.