Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian painters


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SK #1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommended that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Iranian painters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Category:Iranian painters can serves this propuse much better and this doesn't seem provide much more information than that. –ebraminiotalk 23:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  01:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  01:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTDUP. We keep both lists and categories as complementary methods of indexing and navigating. Lists can also always be expanded with annotations (as many entries already are), and we must judge AFD content on its potential, not its current state. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per postdlf. Nominator has not provided a valid rationale for deletion. Pburka (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What the nominator has provided is largely irrelevant - "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." What is relevant is whether a rationale exists; though that does not seem to be the case here.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The validity of a deletion rationale is a substantive issue, not a procedural one. A subsequent participant in this AFD may offer a deletion argument, but absent that no one's obligated to think one up. And we do speedy keep AFDs if the nomination is sufficiently flawed. postdlf (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I said, so not relevant. The point is: let's keep it about the article, not about the nominator and what red tape he has or has not successfully applied.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. No valid rationale for deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It undeniably provides more information than the category: unless you think dates, historical period, and media are all completely irrelevant to the study of art. I'd be curious to know if the proposer wants rid of List of Flemish painters or if there's something about Iranian artists that makes them peculiarly unsuited to list format. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Iranian painters. North America1000 14:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've resigned from the request, please close this –ebraminiotalk 16:23, 27 July 2015 (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.