Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Liberal leaders in the United States

Category:Liberal leaders in the United States

This category seems like a bad idea to me. Who is "liberal" and who isn't? Even if we know who's a liberal, who are the "leaders"? It's all POV. (It seems to me that the entire Category:Liberal leaders and all sub-cats are bad ideas, but that's another topic.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 20:10, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• I am against deletion. I am ready to make an introduction at the category page to explain. It could help people around the world to find out which liberal leaders were or are present in other countries. I am certeainly interested to find out what more or less liberal leaders around the world did. -- Gangulf 22:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is interesting and useful. The problem is, no one can tell you definitively who the liberal leaders are; they can only tell you is a liberal leader in their opinion.
  • For instance, one person might think Dennis Kucinich is a liberal leader, since he would clearly call himself a liberal, and he ran for president. But others will say he's a mere House member who never had a chance of winning the presidency, so he's no leader at all. Some will say John Kerry is a liberal leader, since he's the Democratic nominee for president. Others will say he's more moderate than liberal. How about Ralph Nader? Some say he's more liberal that Ted Kennedy; others note that he's running as a member of the Reform Party, which advocates stricter border control and some other conservative positions, and most liberal organization oppose Nader's run at this point. (I don't want to debate any of these points here, by the way. I just want to show how debatable they are.)
  • I know that some people put a lot of work into the various Liberal Leaders categories, and I feel bad that it will all go to waste, but it's just not NPOV, and can't ever be. – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 18:43, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, the terms liberal and conservative are not fact and they are not night and day. -- KneeLess 23:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Sorry, the category has now an introduction which makes it more NPOV. I think it still possible to keep it.
• Delete: are libertarians liberal? are all Democrats not named Zell Miller liberal? and just who determines who is or is not a leader? too vague. -Sean Curtin 23:48, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. "Liberal" has meant too many things to too many people to be useful as a classification. One of my friends likes to shock people by saying that Nixon was the last true liberal president, and by classical standards of liberalism, he's arguably correct. I don't think "leader" has much content to it for classification purposes, either. Delete this, Category:Liberal leaders, and any other subcats thereof. Postdlf 00:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV/ambigous. Andris 07:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Liberal means too many different things to different people to make any sort of coherent category. If at all, this might be better approached through an annotated list. older ≠ wiser 02:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. How can one objectively define "liberal" and "leader? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:53, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
• D hopelessly vague. Wolfman 21:43, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)