Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Most Corrupt Leaders

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. WP:SNOW. Arguably would have met WP:CSD#G10 as well. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Corrupt Leaders

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title declares this list to be based entirely on what is a subjective value judgement, based on no metric at all, or a metric the choice of which would itself be subjective. The list cannot meet WP:NPOV. Largoplazo (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was actually trying to tag this at the same time you were and got edit conflicted. Hopeless POV in this form. It might be possible to create a list on this topic in the style of List of films considered the worst in which various scholars and political scientists who are experts in this matter are cited, but even then, the source would still have inherent bias. Hog Farm (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No measure of corruption for each of the leaders, this is purely WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so obviously delete -- someone just snow close this or speedy (somewhere between G10 and A11?) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Author is a blocked sockpuppet as well. See [1]. Ajf773 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless WP:LISTCRUFT with inherent NPOV issues. @Ajf773: is the author being a sockpuppet/sock puppeteer automatic grounds for deletion regardless of an article’s merit? I’m asking because I didn’t know and I’m still learning. Woerich (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No question. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source cited is a broken link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. -CoronaEditor (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article in its current form. No objective, verifiable selection criteria supported by sufficient sources, fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. Also fails WP:NPOV as rightly pointed out above. --Dps04 (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Already passes WP:SNOW. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:52, 24 April 2020 (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.