Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prominent marxists

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 of the debate was - renamed

[edit] Prominent marxists

More or less redundant with List of communists, plus the title is slightly POV (who's prominent and why?) and opens up a floodgate of debate (Is Mao Zedong really a "marxist"? Stalin? etc) -- Ferkelparade π 15:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You didn't get it. This is a list about marxists who contributed also to marxist theory, not a list of party politicians. Therefore to delete it would be an act of censorship!

Kolontai, Brecht and many others contributed nothing. Mikkalai 21:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • I was planning to vote delete, but now that you've explained that that would be censorship, well, I don't like censorship so I change my vote to keep. It was that exclamation point at the end that really convinced me. "Censorship" is bad enough, but "censorship!", well, we can't have that.
• Weak keep. This article could be moved to List of Marxists, which would take care of the POV of prominent. I don't see why we can't have a List of Marxists as we have a List of Communists. That being said, anyone on the list would have to be a self-identified Marxist as is the standard for List of Communists. Oh, and accusing Wikipedia of censorship doesn't help the cause. --timc | Talk 16:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. This isn't really the same thing as List of communists, but this list still feels redundant. Jeltz 16:14, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
• Keep but move per Timc. Not the same thing at all, particularly when it comes to Marxian-academic-philosopher types like Guy Debord. Samaritan 18:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• MERGE List of communists with Prominent marxists into Notable leftists or List of notable communists, marxists, communards, lenninists, troyskists, maoists, stalinists and Pythagoreans (and socialists) 132.205.45.110 19:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Dear God, no. "Notable leftists" would just be an endless edit war over whether John Kerry belongs on the same list as Stalin. By the way, votes from anonymous users - those who are not logged in to a Wikipedia account, and whose edits and signature shows as an IP address - are not generally counted on VfD. Samaritan 19:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia articles are not "mere collections of internal links," What Wikipedia articles are not, point #13. If this is to be done at all, it is a job for categories. Resisting urge to get drawn in... resisting... can't... hold... out... Hey, how come Karl Marx isn't on the list?) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey, how come Karl Marx isn't on the list? -- insufficiently notable, unless it can be shown that he was educated at one of the world's great schools; such as Vaughan Secondary School or Kedron State High School, Australia -- GWO
• I guess this isn't really the place to cover this material so I vote delete. However, I'm a little dismayed at some of the comments above. 'Marxist' and 'communist' are not synonymous at all. Leaving aside the fact that most Marxists prior to 1917 called themselves socialists rather than communists, you also have Marxist intellectuals/academics who may or may not communists (historians, sociologists etc) and Marxists who reject the label 'communist' because they do not identify with Leninism.The less said about prominent leftists the better. There's plenty of scope for articles on the development of marxist thought, marxist historiography, marxism and the arts etc, and that's obvious from the list if you know a little about some of the people who are on it. It's just a list, but it points the way to some fertile areas. So, I'm surprised it's been jumped on like this. Am I right in thinking that a) this was listed for deletion four minutes after its creation? b) no-one tried to ask the person who created this list what they were intending to do? If so, I think it's pretty weak. Haven't we simply antagonised and discouraged someone who may well have had interesting and valuable contributions to make? Mattley 21:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Wait - change my vote to Keep, rename if necessary (although how prominent 'differs' from 'notable' I'm not sure). DON'T Merge to list of communists. Mattley 15:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a useful list. --Improv 05:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, not useful. Delete, there's too many lists being made for reasons other than "because someone could want a list of these". --fvw* 11:30, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
• Merge into List of communists. Mikkalai 21:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Change name. List of Marxist theorists -- if that's the idea behind it. Given these the title of "prominent" might be taken as praise, and that should be eliminated. Otherwise, though, its not the same as a list of communists. --68.9.148.204 00:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Theorists? You must be kidding. Did you have a chance to look into the list? Mikkalai 00:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete because Wikipedia articles should not be mere collections of internal links. jni 12:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Marxism isn't the same as communism. A page for a list of important marxist theorists, historian and other academics would be a useful addition as marxism is an academic view in its own right. I admit that it needs expanding (the page is very new) and it needs a better name (i think that List of Marxists would be best). --Bucephalus 15:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to List of Marxist theorists, List of notable Marxist theorists or similar. -- The Anome 16:44, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. We could rename this List of Marxists or List of notable Marxists, but the word 'prominent' in the title is important. Most Marxists have been ordinary men and women who are not notable, which is why they are not on Wikipedia. There's a lot of lists on Wikipedia and point 13 of what Wikipedia is not actually explicitly says lists are ok if they are useful. BTW Karl Marx shouldn't be on here because he explicitly said that he wasn't a Marxist. This is true of a lot of people influenced by Marx. Only people who definitely self-ascribed 'Marxist' should be included.--XmarkX 04:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, rename to something else. These guys are theorists but as a list of people who have said they were influenced by Marxist philosophy, if that's what it is, I don't see an inherent problem with the idea. Calling them "prominent marxists" though might be pushing it -- it implies they are either theorists (most aren't) or they are prominent for their Marxism (most aren't). --Fastfission 05:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, merge with list of contributors to Marxist theory. Charles Matthews 09:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• COMMENT. The article list of contributors to Marxist theory will be useful, but only for some of the people on this list. I didn't create this particular article, but I've done a fair amount of work on it of late. What I wanted to do is reflect the influence of marxism on academics, philosophers, writers and generally areas other than just pure 'theory'. There are lots of people who wouldn't make a 'list of communists' who sit quite happily and naturally on a list of marxists, especially when some brief context is given, as I have tried to do. If you're unsure what I mean, think E. P. Thompson, Jean-Paul Sartre and Paul Foot, historian, writer/philosopher and journalist respectively, but all 'marxists' and all explicitly reflecting this in their work. Anyhow, that is what has become the logic of the article since I've been working on it. Alone. It has improved and I doubt anyone would want to see the material deleted. But it needs treading carefully, it needs a better title, and it needs input from more than just myself. The current title won't do, but I'm not entirely sure that other suggestions really reflect the content adequately. Regards Mattley 23:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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.