Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous womanizers

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Sasquatcht|c 23:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous womanizers

I think that it should be deleted maybe. The list isn't really needed, and I don't think that some of them are "confirmed womanizers". So I think it should be deleted, but I could be wrong. The Fascist Chicken 21:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it's just a "who I hate" list. 81.104.214.161 21:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I started this, so I think it should be deleted, I also agree with 81.104.214.161. The Fascist Chicken 21:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Slanderous and opinionated — C Maylett 22:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's not clear how you maintain a NPOV with a title that is not NPOV. ChemGardener 22:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All above. -feydey 22:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy it's been blanked by the original editing IP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I can imagine how a list or catagory of something like "notorious libertines" (admittedly a slightly different catagory) possibly could be useful or interesting. The problem with this list is that the bar has been set way too low. Casanova, yes. Hugh Hefner, yes. Lord Byron, maybe. Albert Einstein, not so much. Crypticfirefly 04:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep but with a serious trim for unverifiable claims. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: as per ChemGardener CLW 10:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Slanderous"?! Most of the people on the list would have gladly admitted to being a womanizer. The fact that you believe it is a bad thing doesn't make it POV. And Crypticfirefly: it is a well-established fact that Einstein was a womanizer; there was even a recent article on Canada's National Post about it. Owen× ☎ 12:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. But it isn't exactly what Einstein was known for. Crypticfirefly 02:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • He isn't known for being a socialist or a vegetarian, but he's on those lists too. Most womanizers are not career womanizers like Casanova. Owen× ☎ 02:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Precisely my point. As I wrote above, I believe the bar is set too low for this page to be useful. Which is why I voted to delete it. Crypticfirefly 03:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The page contains no defination or standard for "womanizer" so arguably it could include anyone who has ever had relationships or affairs with more than one woman. In fact it contains no text of any kind to indicate the importance of the lsit, or its relation to any other item of knowledge. In the absence of agreed standards the list in unmaintainable and inherently PoV. In the absence of any text this isn't encyclopedic, merely a "pointless collection of information". DES ^(talk) 15:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC) This was my comment, but I seem to have been unknowingly logged out when i posted it. DES ^(talk) 15:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but of course needs to be cleaned up to include only self-admitted womanizers. ··gracefool |☺ 07:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources and inherently subjective inclusion criteria. The list has no encyclopedic value in any case. Quale 06:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POVlist --TimPope 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patently non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 12:29, 28 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.