Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian photographers


 * 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 keep. bainer (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Norwegian photographers
Unnecessary list, and it only has one bluelink anyway. Category:Norwegian photographers is perfectly satisfactory as a repository. Stifle 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--MONGO 05:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list was started only yesterday.  Give it enough time to populate before putting it up for deletion. Durova 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Durova.  D a  Gizza  Chat  07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful list with redlinks. Why? Because people might come along and create those articles. Punkmorten 09:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, "stifle" is a good name. Punkmorten gets it.--Leifern 10:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Punkmorten, it's useful enough on it's own anyway. Jamorama 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, redlinks with promote the creation of articles. They'd be lost in a category. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay, this is going to end up in a keep. I can't request a speedy keep because MONGO has voted to delete. Instead I'm going to come back next month and if it's still full of redlinks and/or pretty much empty, expect to see it back on AFD. Stifle 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like Leifern has been adding to the list pretty consistently. Durova 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Has plenty of red links and also has some dates, which can't be shown in the category. CalJW 14:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral default keep and wait a bit to see what happens. If those redlinks turn out to be non-notable then I will probably support a second nomination. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] RfA! 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because bluelinks + redlinks is a good thing. The blue validates the list, and the red shows the possibility (and need) for expansion. Turnstep 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * keep please this can be expanded not erased Yuckfoo 22:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I know this is going to end up as a "keep" anyway, but it makes much more sense as a category, not a list. If we keep the list, do we delete the category, or just have two redundant lists of the same articles? Kafziel 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete better as a category. --Revolución (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Leifern has created seven new supporting articles overnight. Pretty nearly all lists look like categories in their infancy.  Let's give this a fair opportunity and support a productive editor. Durova 06:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep As Japanese artists above, lists have a use that categories alone cannot fulfill. Look at those photographers waiting to have good, high quality articles written (subject to notability, obviously)  Cactus.man   &#9997;  16:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep encyclopedic list. --Terence Ong Talk 13:57, 13 January 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.