Talk:List of Marxists

message: A user is deleting List of Marxists, and replacing it by a redirect to Marxism. The user refers to the deletion of List of Christians (AfD) and List of anarchists (AfD) as precedents, and sees List of Marxists violating WP:BLP, since the inclusion of some person's names would be contentious and unsourced. Other users don't agree that the deletion of other list-like articles would be a precedent. They are against this deletion, prefer adding an "unsourced" template, and refer to the sources given in the individual biographical articles. 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The List should stay, sources are given in individual articles, to repeat them here would be redundant. Please anyone correct the RFC-reason (both, in the template, and on this page) if you feel it misrepresents your point of view.--Schwalker 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I accept your complaint of redundancy we simply have to have sourcing for all articles and this list is not an exception.  It could be argued that WP:NOT and indiscriminate collection, but I feel that the overriding problem here is that it claims a specific viewpoint for living without giving any sources.  violet/riga (t) 16:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This belongs on AfD, not RfC. If there is a serious call for deletion / removal, bring it to AfD. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No - violations of WP:BLP are removed immediately and do not go to AfD.  violet/riga (t) 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The list should stay as a redirect as violetriga has appropriately done with boldness.    The article "marxism" should be updated to include a "notable marxists" section (or at least a better one than now exists) and should be properly sourced, which is the most important issue here.  Sources, sources, sources.  Even articles that begin with "List of..." need sources and we cannot rely on wiki-users to click on the subsequent names to find them, that's an unrealistic assumption, especially for the living persons on the list. Currently, there is already a caterogy called Marxists with no less than 9 subcats.  The list, in that case, is redundant and borderline listcruft, without reliable sourcing.   Good editing,  Keeper | 76 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The existance of the list is not a WP:BLP violation, and BLP does not justify deleting the list in its entirety. What BLP does require is the removal of any unsourced information in the article. If there are flaws with the article itself (The list has nebulous inclusion criteria, or is unsourceable), then those concerns should be brought to an AfD debate. If the consensus there is to delete, then the article in its entirety can be deleted. Given that the changes have been reverted both ways several times, it seems clear that there is not consensus for or against deletion, so I would propose that the article be nominated for AfD to settle the issue in a structured fashion. I'm not going to revert or edit war over this - but, if violet/riga would consent to restore the article, I will promptly nominate it for deletion. ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  21:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, found it. Per WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles..." meaning that the material is removed, not the article. If the removal renders the article unsalvageable, that's a secondary issue, and one which would be discussed at WP:AFD. ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP justifies the removal of so much of this content that it becomes a joke of an article and would be left with only a handful of entries.  Per the reasoning above (mainly the precedents of similar AfDs and WP:V) the article shouldn't really exist.  The problem with an AfD would be that it generally requires the reinstatement of the article but that would clearly be against the BLP policy.  Perhaps another venue would be WP:DRV but it's not exactly a deletion per se.  Anyone is welcome to try and recreate the list with sources and that would be my recommendation - AfD can't trump BLP so I don't think that is the right way for this to progress.  violet/riga (t) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC