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 keep. Grandmasterka 06:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchists[edit]

Hopelessly vague list ("considered an anarchist by themselves or others"), mostly unsourced list of anyone who has ever, at any time, been considered to be an anarchist by any editor. Serves double duty as an attack page. Might be reasonable to replace this with "Notable people who have self-identified as anarchists," but I'm not sure that's really worth it. Nandesuka 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this version per nom, but (also per nom), no prejudice against a version with significantly tighter criteria for inclusion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --EndlessVince 01:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even sorted by time. Pavel Vozenilek 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a poor reason to delete something, because it isn't sorted to your liking. --Pinkkeith 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because you can kind of "reboot" lists by an edit without having to delete and restart. You could start a big time purge of every name unsourced and then fill in with names in Category:Anarchists--T. Anthony 04:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think this list is maintainable and encyclopedic. Many people openly identify as anarchist, or clearly are anarchist, so I don't see that verifiability is the problem. - Richardcavell 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This would seem better suited to a category. Buckner 1986 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of how it seems, lists and categories are not redundant with each other, they serve different purposes. If you're unsure of the point of lists, please see WP:LIST WilyD 16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, Buckner 1986, that a list can include citations. That's why we are constantly deleting POV categories, because they're easy to use to sneak in an agenda. --Dhartung | Talk 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nothing wrong with having a list of anarchists. Gazpacho 08:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above, a category would be much better. It would be self-maintaining too.--Drat (Talk) 08:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per T-Anthony. I agree that there is some encyclopedic merit to the list, namely with focusing only on the self-identified anarchistic. The list actually has a good source with a number of references. (Though a few are non-RS). Remove the "regarded by other" part (which removes the attack-page element) and either purge all the non-reference name or add a source tag them. If you tag and the article's editors don't come back to add sources in a week or two's time, then purge the remaining names. 205.157.110.11 08:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the existing Category:Anarchists should be sufficient. --Dennette 10:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it is rigorously sourced and presented in some order which makes it other than redundant per the category. Guy 12:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although it obviously needs a lot of work, mainly trimming it of red links and unsourced additions. The benefits of the list form over the category is that sources are clearer and more identifiable (when actually present), and there can be clarification concerning what type of anarchist the person is, a short description of who the person is (eg. American politician, French artist), why they are included, whether it is disputed, etc. A lot of lists have similar problems, but the solution is ruthless editing, trimming and monitoring to ensure it meets Wikipedia standards and policies, not deletion (even though I agree this list is in pretty rough shape). --TM 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. Please see Wikipedia:Categories cannot replace lists. Please stop claiming that when it's plainly false for that issue. Unsourced additions to the list can be excised, but since many are sourced, the list shouldn't be deleted. AfD is not cleanup. WilyD 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, problems with list can be fixed by cleanup. Unsourced persons can simply be reverted. Ramsquire 18:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. False premise in AFD argument was that "Anarchism" is too vague a term. It is in fact as specific as any other political party label, like "Communist," etc. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Er, no you're misreading. What's vague is not "anarchism" but the idea that one is an anarchist if one is considered an anarchist by themselves or others." "I think George Bush is an anarchist. Hey, I can add him to this list!" Nandesuka 11:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Requires tighter criteria for inclusion in this article; imo to large at present. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see ntohing wrong with this list. The only thing I see that it lacks is some verifications. --Pinkkeith 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, needs more citations and some organization. There are scads of self-identified anarchists, even if the term is sometimes misused. --Dhartung | Talk 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per nom and it's filled with red links to boot. A cat would work better --T-rex 23:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'll read WP:LIST you'll discover red links are one of the reasons categories can't replace a list. Since your whole evaluation suggests the list is needed, shouldn't you be arguing for a keep? WilyD 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list might be a bit overlong as the problem with red names is you can add people who might not even exist. Likewise going by WP:Stand-alone lists it'd be best if the persons fame or significance is related to their being anarchists. I think those things can be dealt with though, hence I voted keep.--T. Anthony 10:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WilyD. I think the extra information that's included in the form of notes is not something that would be found if it were reduced to a category. - The Bethling 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Pinkkeith. There's nothing really wrong with this list.--sonicKAI 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TM and pending a revision to tighten up inclusions. It's probably worthwhle to rename List of self-identified anarchists. Agne 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Allixpeeke 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Alensha  ^talk 18:30, 11 September 2006 (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.