Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged collaborators

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. JForget 00:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged collaborators[edit]

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

Prod and Prod2 removed. Prodder tried to list at AFD but didn't file it properly. Almost entirely unsourced OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever is not OR violates NPOV. The list entirely lacks inline citations. Except for the bizarre inclusion of certain fictional characters (!), It deals exclusively with Germany in the 20th century.μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has long been problematic - to put it politely. The criteria for inclusion is an "allegation". That’s not good enough. If it was, then maybe we should then create a list of alleged terrorists and/or war criminals onto which we could put almost every national leader of the 20th and 21st century (afterall, every national leader has probably been labelled as such by someone somewhere). To be called a "collaborator" is inherently pejorative and has often been used for politically-convenient character assassination. This is not something that wikipedia needs to condone or give credence too. Previous arguments that the allegation-only criteria does indeed allow flimsy inclusions do not help wikipedia's quality. And, i agree with the reasoning of the editors above. regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most well said, Merbabu! And an excellent point about the invalidity of "allegation" as a criterion for creating an article. That was an insight of Hitchensian clarity, Merbabu.μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, some times it helps to state the bleeding obvious matter of factly. NPOV and verification for beginners? Carrie's response below makes the same point but takes an alternate ridiculing approach which does make for a great laugh. --Merbabu (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Put on your party hats, it's a POV fiesta! "Collaborator" is a loaded term to start with and cramming together a large number of historically unique events in one Universal List of Collaborators (laughably incomplete) is a car wreck from the get-go... So was every member of the Vichy French government a collaborator? Where's that complete list? Oh, wait, maybe the French Communists in the underground who were being aided by the Soviets were "collaborators," even though they were fighting against "collaborators." Or Yugoslavia --were the Chetniks "collaborators"? But where's that full list of every Chetnik official? Or were they just Serbian nationalist "freedom fighters" who made alliances? That's not my take, but it could be argued... Or was it Tito who was a "collaborator," being aided by the Soviets? But, wait, he was fighting "collaborators" and being aided by the British and the Americans (who wear the white hats, since this is English-language Wikipedia). So maybe Tito wasn't a collaborator after all. And so on and so forth, ad nauseum and ad infinitum... Carrite (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am struggling to think of an article that could be a worse magnet for NPOV/BLP violations. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can't attack someone's character like this without an objective definition of what a collaborator is. Similar to what Carrite and Merbabu said. Enigma^msg 15:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first and second and, (because otherwise it might not be a scientific survey) third blue links all led to actual "collaborators". Lists are hard to persecute with policy, but the scope is too broad and the execution too narrow, resulting in an article that is either inaccurate or unencyclopedic. The See Also links are much better. I would love to add myself to this list, but I am a confirmed collaborator in its hopeful demise. Bigger digger (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2010 (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.