Deletion of List of dictators (2nd nomination)

Comment: per : {{tq|Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion}}. I know that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators|the previous AfD discussion was back in 2006, but the rationale was sound and still applies, so I don't think that disqualifies it. The list is inherently , and that is not a fixable problem. "Dictator" is a value-laden  which is to be used only with  attribution. This list instead puts it in ikiVoice, which is unacceptable.{{pb}}The fact that it is a list also means that we can't circumvent the  problem with  attribution, because list articles need  that are {{tq|unambiguous, objective, and supported by |reliable sources}}. We can't simply have a list of people who have been described as dictators, as that label is often used loosely and/or hyperbolically to such an extent that it would be necessary to make judgment calls about inclusion based on EIGHT (we ''could'' say that Barack Obama has been https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/paul-lepage-donald-trump-obama-dictator/index.html described as a dictator with in-text attribution to Paul LePage, but should we?), and then the inclusion criteria aren't unambiguous and objective, now are they?{{pb}}It's that problem of balancing objective  and  concerns (which require judgment) that makes this untenable as a list article. With prose articles, we have the usual process of assigning ue weight to opposing viewpoints, and excluding that which is undue altogether. We can thus say that mentioning that the subject of the article has been described as a dictator would probably not be UE in the articles Margaret Thatcher and Abraham Lincoln, but that it probably is UE in the articles Muammar Gaddafi and Josip Broz Tito (and in the latter cases more context and opposing viewpoints may be added as necessary). In a list like this however, we have to flout either  or  (or both), neither of which is acceptable.{{pb}}At any rate, there's nothing to merge and no way to salvage this article, so it should be deleted. I would also suggest  it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G4||WP:POV||WP:LABEL||WP:INTEXT||WP:W||WP:LABEL||WP:INTEXT||WP:LISTCRITERIA||WP:RS||WP:WEIGHT||WP:LISTCRITERIA||WP:NPOV||WP:D||WP:DUE||WP:DUE||WP:NPOV||WP:LISTCRITERIA||WP:SALTING)