Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Trotskyists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Trotskyists

Redundant per Category:Trotskyists. A list of names in alphabetical order (which is what the category does), adding nothing to the encyclopaedia except maintenance overhead. My usual problem with lists applies: adding people to the list may not be noticed by editors of the person's article, so is vulnerable to unsourced or POV additions or deletions. In short: this list does precisely the job categories were designed for, only worse. Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and use cat. —Whouk (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This list is very useful and I would like to keep it. Of course it's not nice that persons like Paul Wolfowitz get added to that list because they have been influenced by ex-trotskyists but such things happen all the time on the Wikipedia pages so that is no reason to delete the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvanbemmel (talk • contribs) (Suffrage note: This user's second edit on WP. —Whouk (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete. Category will suffice. youngamerican (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zat Guy. Unlikely to be verifiable but for the most well-known adherents. Fluit 17:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This list is useful, a list allows adding info about its members, there are hundreds of similar lists, and more, there are categories for lists. There's no valid reason to delete this article. I worked on the List of municipalities of Portugal, shall we delete it because we already have Category:Municipalities of Portugal? Afonso Silva 19:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
WOW, it would be the first featured list to be deleted. Can't you see that a list allows us to include, in this case, the date of birth, the nationality, the country, etc...? Afonso Silva 09:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
List of municipalities of Portugal isn't really comparable, IMO - not least because it's a finite list and would be useful regardless of whether there were separate articles for the municipalities themselves. A list of people such as List of Trotskyists though depends on the people on the list being notable themselves, and therefore it would be reasonable to expect them to have their own articles which can be categorised and provide sources for their political affiliation. —Whouk (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - because it duplicates the function of a category. - Richardcavell 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep lists do NOT duplicate the function of categories, they are in fact (IMHO) far more useful, in so far as you can add things to them you just can't with categories. Jcuk 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful as categories are, they do not support red links or notations. Warofdreams talk 01:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've made the exact same arguement before, but one has to remember that we are not building wikipedia for editors, but instead for readers. If you think that a red link list would vbe useful, add it to a talk page or userfy it before deletion. youngamerican (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - as a reader, I would find it useful to see a more complete list, which included Trotskyists on whom we do not yet have articles. Warofdreams talk 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep contains red links and other links. Scranchuse 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. As above, lists do not duplicate categories: the two complement each other. --BrownHairedGirl 08:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete leave it as a category. List is hard to verify and potentially of interest to only a limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jcuk. Not convinced there is any need to delete this, particularly given the arguments above. Would favor deleting the category though. -- JJay 01:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is there policy about this? If not, there should be. Lists in the main space are more accessible and likely to cause the creation of new pages than those in user spaces. Hornplease 08:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: potentially infinite, vague classification, no content apart of the label put on one's forehead, unsourced, listcruft, unencyclopedic, OR without the "research" part, attempt to contribute when one has nothing better to say. Pavel Vozenilek 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep categories are not the replacement for lists.  Grue  10:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pavel. Arbusto 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant. If this isn't deleted the category should be. KleenupKrew 11:46, 13 May 2006 (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.