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. DELETE Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy. Most of the discussion can be ignored as it misses the point: the non-neutrality is not in the content but in the existence of this. -Doc^g 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)-Doc^g 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. 172 | Talk 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators[edit]

Never this article would reach a NPOV status. People (see history) are deleting and adding what they call dictators randomly. It is like if it was a battleground of additions and deletions. Please discuss. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AFD is not a place to bring content disputes or request cleanup. WilyD 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Protect from IP users. If what you say is true, than just protect it from the IP's and new users. RedKlonoa 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NPOV is not an especially inherent problem as most dictators are described as such outside Wikipedia. It may be a problem in some cases, but then, that happens with a lot of articles. Problems with vandals or other edit issues don't mean delete. Seek an alternate solution. FrozenPurpleCube 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Isn't this list a violation of WP:OR and a huge NPOV problem? The only way I could see a list like this working is if the addition of every dictactor is backed up by a reliable source that shows that it is generally accepted that that person is a dictator. Without sources this article would simply be a major POV article (and likely a big source for conflicts and disputes). Jayden54 21:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the plethora of sources on many, if not most of these people, I can't imagine how OR or NPOV is a real problem here. FrozenPurpleCube 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a dictionary definition to what a dictator is so this isn't a indiscriminate list or original research, it is also a notable topic so the list is appropriate. If people are adding non-dictators it is simply vandalism and POV-pushing. These are reasons to protect a page, but not to delete it. Koweja 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and watch very carefully, per all others. There are criteria that a person needs to fulfil in order to be a dictator and RS should be supplied with every addition. Those which can't be verified should be stricken from the record, since they'll either be unverifiable, in violation of BLP, or both. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and semi-protect. Useful list, can be sourced using RS. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and semi-protect so I don't list my boss' name on Friday afternoons. ;) SkierRMH,08:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The page starts by saying that it is a list of people 'commonly regarded as dictators'. That creates a difficulty because even in undeniably democratic countries like the UK people accuse forceful leaders of being "dictators" - see BBC News story. Reading through what others say, why not try to set out some key characteristics of dictators, e.g. lack of real accountability and unwarrantably restricting opposition, and then see who fits? I do see the value of having a list like this but there should be some solid reason for appearing on it. Sam Blacketer 12:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly some dictators are utter tyrants and others comparatively begnine. There will clearly be aguments over who should be included; perhaps there should be two sections - one for those who definitely fit the definition and another for those whose inclusion in it is disputed. The dispuyted cases could then be argued out on talk pages. Peterkingiron 17:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps the most POV page on wikipedia. In modern terms, a dictator isn't a title, it is a term based on a subjective point of view. Most, if not all the names on the list are debatable and disputable containing multiple points of view. NPOV says

  The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

Yet this page asserts one point of view as the truth by its very title. It also woefully fails the basic tenets of attribution, WP:ATT by not attributing who is making each claim. --Zleitzen 04:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Criteria seems reasonable. Require citations rather than deletion. — RJH (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — A very valuable page. The WP community is taking care of monitoring it. We should close this AFD debate soon.69.112.101.41 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is useless. Almost all kings and leaders throughout the world history were dictators, as they were not elected through a democratic election. Such a list is useless. Gorbeh 14:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the word dictator has a negative meaning. Democracy in its western meaning is a phenomenon of 20th century. So leaders of earlier times were all undemocratic in its modern meaning. However they were not necessarily bad people. The word dictator has a negative meaning. We need to include British qeen and Kings and princes of Denmark and Netherlands etc. here as well. Gorbeh 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I read the criteria again. It is vague. Many of the rulers mentioned do not have absolute power. Many of these countries have parliament, elections and the king have to work in the framework of law. The very good example is Iran. The leader is not a democrartic leader. However he is not able to do what ever he wants. He has to follow the law and can in principle be kicked out if he does something against the law. And the law can only gain legitimacy by a referendum. I suggest change the name of the article to Undemocratic leaders rather than dictators (too strong). Gorbeh 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per explanations offered by Jtdirl, John Kenney, and me following the first nomination. To those voting on the AfD now, please give the past discussion a serious reading before making any hasty judgments. 172 | Talk 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nomination did not include a valid reason for deletion from deletion policy. Last time I checked, lists with some disputed POV or OR entries where not candidates for deletion themselves just because some entries contained errors. We can always reduce this to include only Roman dictators, Stalin, Mao and Hitler and maybe few other obvious cases that only crackpot would dispute. Then we wait a decade or two for historians to sort out the mess, or more likely present references both supporting and opposing the dictator label for a given list item. 172's position seems to boil down to something like: Most professional historians disagree among themselves whether to classify a given person as a dictator. Therefore we cannot label anyone as dictator. What is this kind of reasoning if not just disguised argumentum ad populum with little appeal to authority thrown in? Maybe professional historians cannot arrive to conclusions starting from a dictionary definition and expanding it into usable political typology because their branch of science is (yet) too immature or suffers from (currently not well understood) epistemological flaws? Should we also delete all other lists where the list element is Weber's idealtyp and where the term is in general use (e.g. List of emotions) just to satisfy historian's desire for pretence of knowledge (to steal a phrase from professor Hayek)? jni 10:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, will never be anything other than a POV squabble. A category can do the job without the hilarious 'my boss' additions, and without the weaselly 'some people consider X to be a dictator' stuff. Proto::► 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NPOV is not negotiable here. Labels like this don't work. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 20 December 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.