Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Republican celebrities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was - no consensus

[edit] List of Republican celebrities

Takes such an expansive view of "Republican" that it even includes a "lifelong democrat" (sic). Some people will undoubtedly say I should propose more strict criteria on the talk page and get consensus to change it, but I don't think a stricter list would be useful anyway. If someone else wants to make such a list, it wouldn't bother me too much, but in the absence of that, this is simply misleading and malinformative. Tuf-Kat 00:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Agree that a lot of names have been added previously under slim criteria (esp. non-citizens); along with the criteria noted a couple of entries above, and with the added notation that these MUST be U.S. citizens, I'd allow for figures who actively campaign solely for Republicans. In some states, individual voters do not register by party, and thus someone might be (for all intents) a Republican, but with no means of formal registration or notification. Party registration isn't always public, either. The info in the list is useful, and it's difficult to imagine in what other form it might be entered in Wikipedia. I'm not sure it's ideal to add the notation to all the individuals' personal articles; edit wars on one or two pages are plenty. (And starting a category would be no different than what's here now, with the negative bonus of not having any means of noting rationale for inclusion.) MisfitToys 00:59, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
An Anonymous user User:69.162.158.161 has been deleting KEEP votes. Something should be done to this user. FBarnes
  • Delete: Sheesh. "Republican" means "not Democrat?" That's insane! Then there is the assumption that, of course, everyone in the world knows that "Republican" means the Republican Party of the US, so Costa-Gravas, for example, a republican, wouldn't be a Republican, and Lorca wouldn't be a Republican. And then there are liberties with "celebrity" as well. Pointless, useless, sloppy, and bad. Geogre 00:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, a verifiable list of celebrities who are registered Republicans, or a list of those who donated to Bush in 2004 would be acceptable, but a vague list that includes anyone who identifies "themselves as libertarian, conservative or politically independent" and includes people who are not even American citizens has to go. - SimonP 01:05, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ethics being what they are, we can't assume that any person donating to Bush is actually a Republican/conservative/not a Democrat. Anyway, delete for all the reasons listed above. Maybe a list of registered Republicans, but that would be somewhat difficult to verify and maintain, I'd imagine. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:12, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • According to some figures, George W. Bush had the smallest "crossover" vote in history. -- Chaz
  • Delete, cannot be made NPOV, inherently contentious as both "Republican" and "celebrity" are (deliberately?) poorly defined. And uninformative. The only purpose this article serves is the inherently POV purpose of showing off how many scintillating stars in the firmament of celebrity are Republicans. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Isn't there already a list of notable U.S. Republicans (not necessarily under that name)? If so, redirect to the relevant list. If not... well, this list isn't very good or precise, so no vote on that regard, though if it gets kept it needs to be renamed. -Sean Curtin 01:17, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • On this article's talk page I've been advocating serious overhaul of this seriously flawed list. Since no one wants to do it it should just be deleted. There's no similar Democratic list, which is just as well because it would be just as flawed. The critieria is absurd. "Attending Reagan's funeral" makes someone a Republican (so Bill Clinton's a Republican now?), as does stating that Southern Democrats were the primary supporters of segregation (which is true, but they were Dixiecrats who have all since became Republicans, except perhaps Zell Miller), and supporting even one Republican at any time, regardless of how moderate that Republican was. As I said on the talk page, "Republican" has a definition, and the one given in this article ain't it. Pitchka's inane ramblings and hollerin' don't help his case either (speaking of Zell Miller...) -R. fiend 06:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have nothing to add to the excellent points made above. Indrian 06:44, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


Comment: It should definitely be kept - could be very useful, come the revolution! ;) (172.185.207.67)

  • Keep, send to cleanup and revise the definition of "Republican" to something like "so-and-so has publicly said 'I am a Republican.'" I agree with most of the points made above (e.g. things like "Attended Reagan's funeral" and "gave money to George W. Bush" don't necessarily make someone a Republican). This article's in big trouble and needs serious cleanup, but there's really no reason to delete. People seem to be removing names that don't belong at a good clip, so I'm sure this article will shape itself up with some TLC and a revised definition. Regarding Pitchka's rants on the talk page: I'm sure a List of Democratic celebrities with all the problems of this list would go to VfD just as quickly as this article. --Szyslak 10:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • What is the encyclopedic purpose of this article? Arbitrary lists are not encyclopedic; how is this article more valuable than Streets in the town of Pottsville, PA that have at least two vowels in their name? Lists made to prove a point are not encyclopedic; how is this article less tendentious than, say, Protestant winners of the Nobel prize? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • If a list of Republican celebrities is unencyclopedic, so is a "list of left-handed celebrities," "list of dyslexic celebrities," "list of Freemason celebrities" and so on. It would seem that there's a good number of people who care about the political views of celebrities, so why shouldn't Wikipedia contain such info? A list like this isn't here just to prove a point. Just like left-handers, dyslexics and Freemasons, Republicans like to know that there are celebrities much like themselves. (In case anyone's wondering, I'm not a Republican and never will be. But my attitude is, I wouldn't see a problem with a list of Democratic celebrities or the like, so let the Repubs have their list.) --Szyslak 06:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't want to speak for everyone here, but I think the point is that this list goes well beyond those who are registered Republicans, and speculates on how people vote, as well as uses very loose criteria for who gets counted. It would sort of be like having a list of left handed celebrities (which also would hardly be useful), but having it include anyone ever seen holding something in their left hand rather than their right. -R. fiend 06:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I totally agree, that's why I just changed the loose definition of "Republican" and deleted a few names. We all agree that "Republican" doesn't mean "not a Democrat," and that there ought to be a stricter definiton of who goes on a list like this. --Szyslak 06:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I looked at this article and its Talk page, and Lord, it's beyond stupid, in ways too numerous to count. The only mystery is why it too so long for VFD to come up. --Calton 11:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could use some editing, particularly some references to the basis for describing a particular person as a Republican. The question of whether a particular person is a celebrity is fairly easy to answer; if someone appears on broadcast or print media and their name (or their face or voice) is likely to be known to a reasonable proportion of Americans, they can reasonably be termed a "celebrity" in this context. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, incomplete, so vague as to be open to much mis-interpretation, unencyclopedic and tabloidish, probably highly PoV. Wyss 19:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - poorly-conceived silliness stemming from a need to make a partisan point. - Cdc 21:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 05:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. Mikkalai 06:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most of these so-called "lifelong Democrats" are lifelong liars. Anyone going from being a Democrat to a Bush-supporter was never a Democrat to begin with. It isn't balanced when there are lists of gays, lists of Jews, and lists of liberals in the media and not a list of Republicans. I think there probably isn't a request to delete List of Republican celebrities of the past because it doesn't conflict with the liberal media theory as much as this does. -- Chaz
    • Where is there a list of "list of liberals in the media"?
    • I have corrected the oversight and nominated List of Republican celebrities of the past for deletion. Tuf-Kat
  • Update The same list has been posted as Suspected Republican Celebrities--nixie 02:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Another update: I decided to "be bold" and change the definition of "Republican" so it doesn't include libertarians and other non-Republicans. I also deleted some libertarians and non-Americans (Rachel Hunter, who is from New Zealand, was on the list because she "would vote for Bush.") --Szyslak 06:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this list is a just as legitimate as any other "list of" article on wikipedia. -- Old Right 17:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. That the current entries are badly flawed and the talk page is less than civil are both not grounds for deletion of the entire article. Include only
    1. celebrities who are/were
    2. famous outside of politics (except perhaps presidents, who can't help but be famous outside politics) and are
    3. self-proclaimed Republicans and/or
    4. verified members of the Republican Party (if such a thing is possible without #3).
  • No things like "support" the Republican Party or "has been suspected to vote" Republican or "likes Bush" or any other POV vagueness. Weed out the rest, and there's a perfectly good list. (Unless you believe the only good list is a deleted list, of course. :-) And someone with any facts start List of left-handed celebrities! JRM 20:25, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
    • There's already a list of famous left-handed people (which, incidentally, survived VFD a few months ago) --Szyslak 04:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I would almost be ready to support (or, at least, not try to delete) such an article, but having observed what's happened already with this article makes me highly sceptical that this can be done. Certain people are determined to use very circumstantial evidence to support that various people are Republican, and then the burden rests on us to somehow prove they're not, which is difficult to do. Also, I've noticed at times that after articles survive VfD their supporters see this as some sort of mandate to keep the article as is, even when the VfD discussion makes it clear that there are serious problems. While it's theoretically possible to keep this article NPOV, I'm not really sure this is at all likely to happen in practice. I have similar misgivings about the various "2004 election controversy" articles (of which there are something like 7), which seem like they will be kept. -R. fiend 04:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      ...and then the burden rests on us to somehow prove they're not... This, I disagree with. If we clearly and plainly state at the top what the list is about (which is itself subject to consensus, of course) and include that any entry has to match those criteria to have a place in the article (and we can demand attribution for controversial things up front if we want to, darnit, we're an encyclopedia!)... well, then it'll still be a huge fist fight, but I'm categorically opposed to deleting articles that have demonstrable potential just because we think we can't stand the heat. If it makes you feel any better, I personally commit myself to (gently!) slapping sense into the fools and children who frequent such a page along with my keep vote. (I'm only one contributor, of course, but still.) Try it as an experiment if nothing else. JRM 23:40, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
Well, when you have Pitchka arguing for the inclusion of David Lynch with "I haven't seen any proof that he never supported the Republican Party" (quoted from a now deleted section of the talk page) he clearly tries to shift the burden of proof on us. If you're willing to delve into each and ever person on this list, well, that's commitment at least. I think, if kept, the list will have to be basically started from scratch, with citations giving strong evidence that everyone on it is a registered member of the Republican Party. I also still worry that if kept but isn't improved it will be nearly impossible to delete, as we'll hear no end of "this has already survived VfD! Stopping trolling!" -R. fiend 23:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Delete very inacurate. many celebrities are assumed to be republicans based on single statements, and tom selleck is listed on this crap website as both libertarian and a republican. [Restored but reformated as comment by Jerzy(t) 08:16, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC); original author is anon IP vandal User:69.162.158.161]
  • Keep - You can be both a libertarian AND a republican! -- Crevaner 04:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a historical moment as actors come out of the closet. weide 04:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep it's becoming one of the best sourced Wikipedia article. all of the lists could learn a lesson from it. Given time I suspect that every name that is on the list will have a source. given time. FBarnes
    • Hogwash. The sourcing is spotty at best and your suspicion that every name will be sourced is faith-based at best. What it is, is left-over pre-election propaganda, and if there's any hope for it whatsoever it should be torn down rebuilt from scratch, with strictly defined standards (hint: giving money to John McCain doesn't make you a Republican) and sourcing. --Calton 05:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Note to above: I've taken the liberty of trying to move to that on the talk page. In case it's deleted, I'll try and start a new list by getting it right from the start, but maybe we can already turn it around. Agree with Calton that assuming there will "eventually" be sources is hopeless for the current content. JRM 20:14, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, mostly unverifiable, National Enquirer stuff. Antandrus 05:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another worthless list. It might be slightly better if it let us know which Republican Party it's talking about (e.g. United States?), but it'd still be a useless list. --Improv 20:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. But the criteria should be public, verifiable information or statements, not tabloid guessing. zen master 07:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedia material. --Vik 03:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but impose stricter guidelines. As it stands, Michael Moore could qualify to go on the page (he attended the 2004 Republican National Convention, did he not? As a reporter?) --Fermatprime 04:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Very through article indeed. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:35, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, all good points have been made above! -- Judson 14:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Del or Redirect to List of Republican celebrity fundraisers; nominated title unencyclopedically vague. --Jerzy(t) 14:47, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to List of celebrities with links to the US Republican Party or similar, and move everything that isn't rock solid (election, self-description, donation) to Other Links Or Support. 'Labelled as' section is out-and-out gossip and should go straight in the bin. Rd232 15:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It can be verifiable if the people concerned have openly voiced support. Obviously the list needs very close checking as it's so easy for POV to slip through, but I say keep and watch like a hawk. Dbiv 16:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete 1) American-centric... republican means many different things in many different countries. It seems to assume that 'Republican' means a member of the U.S. Republican branch of the democratic-republican party. 2) unverifiable: There are numerous difficulties in verifying who is/was and isn't/wasn't a "Republican" would I be a republican if I registered as a Republican? 3)vagueness: Who is a celebrity? Mickey Mouse? An unknown party functionary? a well-known but unrecognisable artist? 4)lack of value: I see no value in merely listing "celebrities" who at one point in their life were "Republican". If they are notable, the information belongs in their article 5)equal time issues: Do we provide a list of all Celebrities of every political party? 6) since this is only living americans do we delete someone when they die? 7) what criteria determines who is an "American"? 8) what about people who are registered in one party but give money to both parties? 9) or people who are registered Republican and vote for the Green candidate in a primary? 10) or people registered democratic but claim to be republican? too many issues with this list, it has already wasted much more time than the value it could provide. Pedant 19:28, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
  • Delete - unverifiable and subjective. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Needs lots of work. Don't think that donations to McCain or any other one or two Republicans qualifies one in absence of other evidence; nor do statements, comments, contributions, or attendance at something over a decade ago necessarily mean anything (Dennis Miller was a Democrat then!). Attendance at conventions means next to nothing, especially if one is paid entertainment. Needs to be blatant that it is about U.S. Republican Party, and doesn't need to include non-U.S. citizens; otherwise is like starting "List of persons who would support the CDP/CSU

if they were Germans".

[edit] Vote Tally

(As of Jerzy(t) 18:43, 2004 Dec 10 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_List_of_Republican_celebrities_c20e.html"