Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party

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 all. I will userfy the content for User:MisfitToys before deleting. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NOR, WP:POV and they are unencyclopedic lists with little objective criteria. Who is a “celebrity” and what constitutes a “link” is largely subjective and gives rise to a serious POV problem. While some “celebrities” may be easily “linked” to a party (i.e. performed a benefit concert), there are serious problems verifying who ought to be on this list, short of checking their wallets for party membership cards or spying on them in the ballot booth. More or less listcruft. Technical nomination based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities with links to the Conservative Party of Canada. --Ardenn 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Too difficult to provide verifiable proof of party membership and too subjective to establish "celebrity" status. Scorpiondollprincess 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per me per nom, especially given that the reason given here is exactly the same reason I nominated four similar articles on "celebrity links" to Canadian parties. Agent 86 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, these pages are really not necessary and speculative. Cuñado - Talk 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for vagueness. Gazpacho 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --NeoChaosX 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons given by the nom. 23skidoo 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Resolute 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Noting a subject's ties to a particular party or philosophy is certainly welcome on his/her page, but lists like these cause all sorts of problems and are overpoweringly difficult to keep in line with WP policy requirements. -- H·G (^words/_works) 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Usgnus 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; vague and unencyclopedic listcruft. It's perfectly valid to discuss a celebrity's political views on their article, but a list is pretty pointless and doesn't give much context in cases of dispute (such as, say, a celebrity who's supported different parties at different times based on the political circumstances of the day, which definitely happens — for example, David Letterman is a prominent example of someone who's gone on record as saying that he's voted both Democrat and Republican at different times.) Bearcat 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, per above.--Jersey Devil 01:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and Bearcat; I've long wondered about these articles, having once considered undertaking to clean up and source each (with, to be sure, an eye toward objective standards), but have concluded that, even as it's often possible to source names (notwithstanding that, as Bearcat well notes, many individuals could appear on both lists), it's eminently impossible (or at least inconsistent with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NOT) to determine who is a celebrity. Joe 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same reason as the Canadian ones. -Royalguard11^Talk 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete The lists provide interesting and useful information and should not be deleted. 12:51, 20 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.58.62 (talk • contribs)
• Delete all per nom, Scorpiondollprincess and Bearcat. Paddles ^T_C 13:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Simply because the case made for deletion is so weak. The notion of celebrity is quite well-defined, and the articles on the Democrats and Republicans provide links as verification for everyone included. Also, both articles seem to have been through and survived this process before. The Bruce 12:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete* Great info, useful, helpful. Fun to look at! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny Drunky Gal (talk • contribs)
• Keep & Improve Cite sources, build refs, mind policy guidance on biograhies of living persons. Poor content does not mean delete, it means improve... --Ssbohio 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Do Not Delete These lists provide very interesting information about a particular subject and should not be deleted, but enhanced to stay within Wikipedia policy guidelines. User:Jack C. Alexander 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC). Not a valid vote, sockpuppet. Ardenn 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC) *Do Not Delete There are no solid pieces of evidence to suggest that any of these articles violate Neutrual point of view or any other major Wikipedia policy, they certainly appear straight, fair and balanced and should not be deleted on those grounds. User:Mark Parchezzi 3 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Not a valid vote, sockpuppet. Ardenn 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.75.7.152.96 19:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone who said Delete Mad Jack 20:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The articles were started with the criteria that those listed be party members (based on either running for office, party activism or personal statement), but the titles were changed because contributors believed that was too restrictive and hard to verify. Now, of course, the attitude is the opposite – that the criteria should be more restrictive, and that party membership should be verified. I was never in favor of including individuals with more tenuous connections to the various parties, but other users believed that was a useful component of the lists. If decision is to delete, please userfy articles under my page to allow for data retrieval; these are reasonably old articles with substantial contribution histories. MisfitToys 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.