Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communists

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. Lexicon (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of communists[edit]

Delete We already have categories that are more suited to listing things like this. There is not a single cited source. The page is just begging to be vandalised (see the edit by User:66.131.228.205, "huh huh let's list our teacher"). AlistairMcMillan 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Because I wasn't clear before, there is already a category to cover this Category:Communists. AlistairMcMillan 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject of the list is too broad.--TBCΦtalk? 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too broad, open to POV problems as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And while you're at it, delete List of anarchists, List of Trotskyists, List of left communists, and especially List of socialists and its subpages. This is why we have categories. Stebbins 03:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists are preferable for controversial attributions, as they can be sourced in the article and because of the value of redlinks. There is increasing pressure to remove all categories that refer to political affiliation, and that leaves us with nothing at all to organize articles. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Can you provide evidence for this? Stebbins 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_28#Category:Ideological_publications, for one. -- Dhartung | Talk 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for elaborating. However, I believe that the definitions of political affiliations such as "liberal" and "conservative" are far more vague -- or at least far more controversial -- than the definitions of ideologies such as "communist", "anarchist", &c. Also, the arguments made against political categories (they are controversial/POV) can be applied equally as well to political lists. If we have to choose between keeping a list or keeping a category, I think that a category is the better choice. Stebbins 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably turn into a category. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already a very well developed category: Category:Communists. AlistairMcMillan 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; along with the other lists of the type of people of the day categories, this should be made into a category. --Mhking 18:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, better served by a category. --Dennisthe2 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Dhartung's excellent points. Noroton 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Dhartung - a list lends itself much better to potentially controversial inclusions. A category is by no means the same as a list, nor can it serve the same purpose. --Mus Musculus 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having a category is not a reason to delete a list, both are useful. The category has no context, making it difficult to find the person your looking for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Stebbins. Someone show me a definition of "communist" that will pass consensus, then show me how it applies to everyone on that list. These lists gather names like piers gather barnacles. RGTraynor 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable list with unqualified inclusion criteria Alf^Photoman 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This "article" is an excellent example of why I gave up on the Wikipedia project months ago. How is this supposed to be useful? It is redundant to the category. Certainly, one could claim that the list could include information which a category could not convey--but it isn't being used like that, so it makes no difference. This is just more pointless listcruft. People like to contribute to these lists because doing so requires very little time or effort, but I have yet to see evidence that people actually find such lists useful. And, really, how useful can a list where Brecht and Brezhnev are lumped together possibly be? Heather 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable AND superfluoous. --Pan Gerwazy 16:31, 15 March 2007 (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.