Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of art magazines


 * 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 No consensus, so keep. (aeropa gitica) 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

List of art magazines
Delete (nom) WP is not an arbitrary collection of lists. Articles can be added to an appropriate category. All this seems to be is a collection of redlinks and web links (which WP is also not). &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - prod was removed without justification (this is an informational statement, not an accusational one!) &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 16:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - I forgot to mention in original nom that the Category:Art magazines already exists. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A category would serve the same purpose of this list, and better. wikipediatrix 16:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep please see Wikipedia:Lists serve a different function than categories, so you cannot simply replace lists with categories as to why there are lists, and why they're worth keeping. If the list is poorly written then - rewrite!  Don't delete. WilyD 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment From WP:LIST: Lists have three main purposes: Information ... Navigation ... Development - Let's address them. Information - there is no additional info over a category. Navigation - more than 1/2 are redlinks so it is just a web directory. Development - are all these magazines actually notable enough to create articles for each? (Hint: I found this list cleaning up behind an AfD on one of them already). &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll address the issues seperately.
 * Information - the list does contain some information that the category doesn't (such as where some magasines are based). So it passes the first main purpose of a list
 * Navigation - there are some redlinks, but also lots of blue links. Therefor, the list does serve a navigational purpose.
 * Development - if half the magasines are redlinked, there's obviously room to use this article for development, if desired. If not, it at least satisfies two of the three possible uses of a list.  The arguments for deletion all boil down to This article is a stub which is a terrible criterion for deletion. WilyD 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: There's currently not much precedent for magazine lists, and I certainly wouldn't want to see List of cooking magazines, List of swimsuit magazines, List of photography magazines, List of porn magazines, List of tattoo magazines, List of dog magazines, List of cat magazines, List of travel magazines, List of electronics magazines, List of paranormal magazines, List of wedding magazines, List of southern magazines, List of film magazines, List of pop culture magazines, List of science magazines, List of science fiction magazines, List of industrial magazines, List of dental industry magazines, List of insurance industry magazines, List of airline magazines, List of game magazines, List of internet magazines, List of music magazines, or List of holiday magazines cluttering up Wikipedia anytime soon. wikipediatrix 17:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware some people don't like lists, but lists serve a valuable purpose that only become more valuable with time. Navigation of Wikipedia gets harder and harder as more articles are added, and lists provide a way to get a quick overview of a whole subject, while linking to relevent main articles for more information.  Sure, this list isn't up to Featured List or even Good List status yet, but I'll reiterate my argument that This article is a stub is a terrible criterion for deletion.  Lists are a way of avoiding clutter, not creating it - and as long as they're encyclopaedic, there's no reason to delete them per Wikipedia:She be many things, eh?  But she's ain't paper, not at all. WilyD 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about removing the red links and transporting the blue ones to an "art" section of List of magazines? wikipediatrix 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists of magasines is already sorted by country - double sorting seems undesirable (but I may be alone on that). There are already several other entries in Category:Lists of magazines.  I'm really not attatched to the redlinked ones regardless of the outcome of this. WilyD 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per WilyD. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There is already an "art magazine" category, which this article is in. :) Dlohcierekim 05:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WilyD. If you don't like the external and red links you can take them out with the "edit" button, you don't need an AFD. Kappa 06:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WilyD.-Kmaguir1 08:55, 31 August 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.