Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish 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 keep. Closing early on the basis that the nominator stated in their nom they want an early close if a relevant guideline exists. Since WP:CLN has now been cited, and nobody has recommended delete, speedy close would seem best. SpinningSpark 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Spanish painters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

What is the practical use of this list provided the existence of a relevant category? I don't know about any English Wikipedia policies (or practices) regarding this issue, so if there are any, feel free to snow keep (or snow delete) this list and I'll take it into consideration for future uses. Piramidion 13:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Piramidion  13:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The advantages of a list like this is that it can be annotated, it can include redlinks (preferably with a source to show some notability or at least verifiability), it can include painters without an article here but with an article on another Wikipedia (e.g. the Spanish one). At the moment, it doesn't have many of these advantages yet, but e.g. List of Belgian painters shows a bit of what is possible over time. Fram (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

*Strong keep Although I agree with you that the list needs improvement, List of Belgian painters being a good example of what it could become, this is no reason for deletion and the list should be kept. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 16:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLN. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the guideline states that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." I guess this means a 'snow keep' in this case...--Piramidion 17:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I read the wrong thing, ignore. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 16:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, incorrect reasoning, per above comments. Deleting because of the "better as a category-list-template" argument (or any combination thereof) does not only not fit the guideline, but turns the guideline on its head. These arguments have always been and are always invalid. The guideline says that the three ways to create maps on Wikipedia - lists, categories, and templates - complement each other. They are separate. And are encouraged to be separate. Deleting any of these three ways to map Wikipedia because there is an existing category, or list, or template, violates the guideline. They are, by existing language, useful partners. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above editors. The existence of a category does not make a list redundant. Lists can (and often should) include more information than can be seen in a category listing. --Michig (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2019 (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.