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. Many of these people are alive, and those names which are "sourced" at all cite inappropriate "references" (mostly other wikis or an anonymous online "anarchist's encyclopedia.") WP:BLP is not negotiable, nor is WP:V. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchists[edit]

List of anarchists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete We have categories for things like this. Overwhelmingly unsourced. Previously nomination failed because people kept saying "well it just needs to be cleaned up", six months later still a mess. AlistairMcMillan 20:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like the qualifier at the bottom "these people did not qualify themselves as anarchists". Which would I suppose be fine if we identified who did qualify them as anarchists, but of course this is just a list so we don't. AlistairMcMillan 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anarchists AlistairMcMillan 20:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if the entirety of the article is sourced or removed, NOW. Failing that, delete, with a categorisation or any entries that are sourced into the appropriate category, and merge the sourced info into the persons' articles. -- saberwyn 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a textbook case for categories. As being an anarchist doesn't make a subject notable, there's no reason for redlinks in this list, and there's no annotation in the list which would make it any more useful than a category. Categorize all the entries that are verifiably anarchists, and delete the list. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmaintainable and uncertain inclusion criteria Alf^Photoman 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - a category is a better substitute. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete especially in light of the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communists. This list is much longer than the communists one, and also contains much less information. Hence, all the objections in the communists AFD apply even more strongly to this list. Stebbins 01:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above . Manik Raina 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'm currently, very slowly, working on a version with sources and information here. If this article was deleted, would a sourced, informative recreation also be deleted out of process? I'm just wondering. The list of atheists is the example from which to work, in my opinion, for all lists of poeple-by-ideology-or-belief, and that's what I would like to see. I also agree with the point raised on the list of communists AfD that sourcing is much easier in a list than a category. This isn't sourced yet, but it can be. Such souring also lends itself better to people like Max Stirner and Leo Tolstoy, who refused the label of anarchist for personal reasons, but were major anarchist thinkers. I do agree with removing the red links, as people are rarely notable solely for being anarchists. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep at this stage very useful for redlinks. the sources shld be in articles, perhaps only needs verification?  ⇒ bsnowball  11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Such list, if allowed, should be structured by country or period, not sorted by name. That would allow to add some context, unlike the current list. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fascists for a precedent (and that list was much better structured). Pavel Vozenilek 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bsnowball comment above. -- Infrogmation 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To bsnowball and infrogmation: please keep Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in mind. All the red links that don't have reliable sources beside them should be removed from the article immediately. At least with the blue links there is a chance that the linked article is sourced. For the red links we can see that a large proportion of them are unsourced. They can't just stay there unsourced indefinitely until someone gets around to writing an article. AlistairMcMillan 17:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blp is irrelevant: as 'anarchist' isn't a straight down the line criticism (the only thing which blp says needs to be gotten rid of 'straight away', & then only if the subject is still living) NB this fact is also the relevant difference with pavel's 'list of fascists' precedent, so that precedent does not apply here.  ⇒ bsnowball  14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP doesn't just talk about criticism. It talks about "contentious material - whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable". How can you even judge if the material is contentious, when all there is here is a name? BLP does apply. AlistairMcMillan 08:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article needs referencing, not deletion. Owen 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what people said six months ago... nothing happened. AlistairMcMillan 20:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being impatient with an article's progress is not grounds for deletion. I added a number of external links for red links a while ago, and wouldn't mind going through the rest. This article is an important one to have, and is useful in its current state. If the problem with the article is the lack of citations, then we need to warn readers of this fact through tags. Owen 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarge, there are a few citations in my sandboxed recreation if needed. Personally I don't think there is a problem with listing Bakunin or similar without citation for the time being, but it always helps. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's looking very good. I agree that we don't need references for the obvious, I just want to make sure that people who don't have articles are at least referenced. I think your categorization helps with that. Still, it might be problematic since it's sometimes hard to say just where people belong. For instance, Zinn would just as well fit as an educator. Overall though I think that's a good direction for the article. Owen 08:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per numerous similar categories. This clearly would be an encyclopediac list if it became sourced--Sefringle 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Goes with Category:Anarchists and it should include those anarchists without articles written for them. --FateClub 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a notable anarchist doesn't have an article, then write a stub on them and add it to the category. Much more useful in the long run: stubs attract improvement, whereas redlinks on a list don't get the same sort of attention. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we have an article that lists even those with red links we can keep track of who does not have an article and then other can write articles on them, they may be notable for other reasons than being anarchists. --FateClub 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if the names are not cited, then how do we know if they belong on the list? AlistairMcMillan 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly half of them are, and all of them should be. --FateClub 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Usedup 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Impatience is not a reason to delete articles that are not flawed in principle. If anyone is impatient that the list is not sourced, they can source it themselves. At least this list, unlike a category, can be referenced. The idea to structure the list differently (i.e., by time period, country, etc.) is a good one, and should be brought up on the article's talk page (assuming it is kept). -- Black Falcon 19:56, 23 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.