Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn


 * 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. A small majority in favour of deletion, but a lot of essays and guidelines are being used as rationale here, and so there is no consensus to delete. I would say, however, that the article should not have been nominated in the first place per WP:DPAFD, which is a policy ("After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again."). I suggest that policy is followed this time. If anyone wishes to take this close to DRV, please do so without waiting for me to discuss it, just drop me a courtesy note saying that you have. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn
AfDs for this article:
 * Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Artists
 * Articles for deletion/List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Vrac (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Is Wikipedia a directory of where people live, or used to live? How long do they live there before they qualify as "having resided"? Who decides that? Where does it go from here? List of plumbers who stayed in hotels in Akron, Ohio? Vrac (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Artists from Brooklyn (lists and categories are "considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative"), and per WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid.


 * Furthermore, this is a a notable topic. The list satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN. The article qualifies per WP:LISTN because the overall topic of Brooklyn artists has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. See source examples below., , , ,.


 * Also, the article is fully sourced with inline citations to reliable sources to verify content. The previous discussion at Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Artists, also initiated by the nominator here, was closed as keep less than one day ago. North America1000 12:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that it is a different article now, after the name/criteria for inclusion change. Vrac (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing a few words in the article's title does not negate the notability of the topic, nor the applicability of WP:NOTDUP in this matter. Also, the article's criteria for inclusion as stated in its lead fully conforms to the above-stated guidelines. North America1000 12:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on notability is welcome, however, the article has fundamentally changed and is therefore eligible for a new AFD. Vrac (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, disruptive and bad faith renomination that was closed as keep just yesterday. The nominator has spent that one day blanking entries without regard for whether they can be sourced (as easily as from their linked articles), and edit warring to even remove entries that are sourced. Their wikilawyering over the title is completely frivolous, as is their WP:VAGUEWAVE NOTDIR rationale. Recommend ANI report if this nonsense continues, as Vrac is merely determined to attack this list and make it difficult for other editors to expand it. postdlf (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Threats and accusations aren't going to change the fact that you do not have reliable sources to back up your inclusions on the list "List of artists from Brooklyn". That is hardly frivolous.  As for the article under this new name, your opinion on whether it belongs in Wikipedia is welcome but try to stick to the issues at hand instead of throwing out attacks. Feel free to open an ANI...Vrac (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Content disputes are no basis for deletion, and nothing you've said justifies starting a new AFD a day later. I welcome anyone to look at the list's edit history to see that you've repeatedly removed entries that were sourced to establish, for example, that the individuals had worked in Brooklyn as an artist,, purely because in the case of one he was born elsewhere and the other they subsequently relocated elsewhere. So it is false to say there were no reliable sources; you have instead ignored them just to push a narrow view that no one can be listed as from a given place if they ever had an association elsewhere. This is pure disruption to empty the list in support of your attempt to have it deleted, and this nomination is completely meritless. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an AFD for "List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn". To me it's quite obvious that it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY.  Is Wikipedia a phone book? How long do they live there before they qualify as "having resided"? Who decides that? Where does it go from here? List of plumbers who stayed in hotels in Akron, Ohio?  If you want to talk about "List of artists from Brooklyn", an article that no longer exists, perhaps you should take the issue to the article's former talk page. Vrac (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Request to speedy close this and review nominator's editing of the list now at ANI. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally I would !vote "weak delete", but I am instead !voting speedy keep per my reasoning here.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 23:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Voting "Speedy keep" instead of "Weak delete" for reasons unconnected to the notability or content of an article, is rather WP:POINTy. I'm sure the closer of this AfD will consider your "weak delete" !vote. Kraxler (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Delete Wikipedia is not a list of things, per, WP:DIRECTORY, just as Vrac says.   If the artists are notable, set them up with their own article and delete this one.   KoshVorlon  We are all Koshundefined  11:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it that three years after having your last list AFDs rejected, you are still inexplicably claiming that Wikipedia doesn't have lists? WP:NOTDIR itself contradicts you on that in its first sentence, even if it wasn't otherwise painfully obvious that, yes, Wikipedia has lists of things. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is "How is it that three years after having your last list AFDs rejected" supposed to mean? What has anything that happened three years ago to do with this AfD? Are you arguing ad hominem, Postdlf? As an admin, you should know better. Kraxler (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You should know better than to make an accusation before you understand what a comment is supposed to mean. And do you really want to defend the completely nonsensical assertion that "Wikipedia is not a list of things"? The same editor went on a spree a few years ago claiming that NOTDIR forbade lists, period, because "Wikipedia is not a list". These were snow closed, and nothing anyone said to him made him understand. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But you have seen WP:OTHERSTUFF, right? So what have actions from three years ago to do with this list? "The same editor went on a spree a few years ago claiming that NOTDIR forbade lists, period, because "Wikipedia is not a list". These were snow closed, and nothing anyone said to him made him understand." is a classic example of an argument ad hominem. Kraxler (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a strange understanding of "classic example" as well as of "ad hominem". "Wikipedia is not a list of things" is complete nonsense regardless of who said it, and knowing that he has used this claim before and had it soundly rejected, I asked him why he is still saying it, particularly when it's contradicted by the very policy section he's citing. He's free to respond or not, but no one is entitled to keep offering the same garbage rationale without being called out on it (and he has not offered an argument about this list but only a claim about all lists). But you're not actually defending his "rationale", so this thread seems, like your overall participation in this AFD, pointlessly combative rather than substantive. postdlf (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Garbage"? Are you sure that you're still within the bounds of WP:CIVILity? Kraxler (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete pure WP:LISTCRUFT. ukexpat (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep- Borderloine, perhaps, but on balance a useful list. BMK (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is what categories are for. Thomas.W talk 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CLN says otherwise. postdlf (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where? Could you post a quote? Kraxler (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole guideline generally, and WP:NOTDUP specifically. postdlf (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In the event that no one closes this early, despite it having been started less than a day after the previous "keep" result for the same page, I incorporate here by reference all of my comments and arguments from the first AFD. postdlf (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This will run the full length, and may be relisted any number of times, until a clear result becomes visible. FYI the whole previous discussion, not only your comments, are available to be seen at the link in the box at the top right of this thread. Kraxler (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete An indiscriminate listing of names. It could include people who at some point in their lives sculpted, painted, were photographer, musicians, dancers, poets, rappers, actors, or writers, and who at some instant or period in time (growing up, college,  apartment, studio, non-artistic job) were within the legal boundaries of Brooklyn. Nothing states that they have to be closely associated with Brooklyn, like a "Brooklyn Rap Style" or the "Brooklyn School of Impressionist Painter".  At the extreme, it could include many thousands of names, and is unlikely to ever be a comprehensive or meaningful listing. Edison (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a general complaint against lists of people by occupation and place, but we have plenty of those and it's a subcategorization staple (hence Category:Artists from Brooklyn). The subdivision, even when it can't be justified in its own right as here as Northamerica1000 has demonstrated above, can still be arrived at either by splitting groups of people from a given place into occupational sublists, or from the other direction, by subdividing groups of people with the same occupation by place. Do we even have thousands of articles on artists, let alone thousands with a substantive connection to Brooklyn? The category has forty-two, so doubtful your slippery slope is remotely meaningful. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it sounds like an intelligent rephrasing of WP:DOAL # 6 . Kraxler (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I support a speedy keep per Deletion policy: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Notability says, "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." has shown with several sources that "List of artists from Brooklyn" is a notable topic. What Wikipedia is not says: "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject." Since "List of artists from Brooklyn" is a notable topic, WP:NOTDIRECTORY actually provides support for the retention of this article, not its deletion. I also agree with  that several of the "delete" votes advance arguments that conflict with the guideline Categories, lists, and navigation templates, which says: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative.  Furthermore, 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." Another argument for deletion is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which has four bullet points: (1) Summary-only descriptions of works, (2) Lyrics databases, (3) Excessive listings of statistics, and (4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. None of these bullet points can be applied to "List of artists from Brooklyn". The "keep" arguments far outweigh the "delete" ones, which is why  closed Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Artists as "keep" despite the split vote count: "The result was keep. Numerically it would be no consensus, but the keep !votes were more policy compliant. The list technically isn't indiscriminate because it has both a context (affiliation with Brooklyn) and sourcing. The fact that in its current form it duplicates the function of a category is not a reason for deletion. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)" Cunard (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete pure WP:LISTCRUFT, worthless not notable topic. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How is the overall topic "not notable" when it passes WP:LISTN? See the sources I provided above in this discussion. Also, LISTCRUFT is an opinion essay, whereas WP:LISTN is a part of the Notability page. North America1000 08:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a fallacious argument. You say "How is the overall topic "not notable" when it passes WP:LISTN". But whether it passes LISTN or not is exactly the question here, answered by a majority in the negative. So, you can't presume a positive outcome when the question was not settled yet. By the way, none of your sources has in-depth coverage of "Artists which resided in Brooklyn", all sources mention that there are artists and that there's Brooklyn, none mentions any residence. Kraxler (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename "List of Brooklyn artists". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Delete - per WP:DOAL # 5 and 6. Anyway it's WP:LISTCRUFT (that's an essay, I know, but one that is supported by a vast majority of Wikipedia users). Kraxler (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DOAL doesn't provide a basis for deletion of a particular list, it's just a list of disadvantages of lists in general. And here there's no reason to believe that either being an artist nor having a connection to Brooklyn cannot be sourced, nor is there any reason to believe that this list is, or would become, unmaintainably long. Even if either was the case, the first is not a valid deletion argument and the second would be cured by splitting into sublists. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DOAL provides for a good argument to delete this list, and keep the Brooklyn artists in a category only, that's what it says, and it is part of the often by yourself cited guideline WP:CLN. Besides, WP:SUSCEPTIBLE to which you link above, is just an essay, while WP:DOAL is part of a guideline. Thus the latter takes preference. Anyway, you can't selectively cite a guideline and dismiss part of it to suit your own convenience. Kraxler (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't dismiss part of the guideline, I explained it to you. DOAL doesn't say "delete lists in favor of categories" any more than WP:DOAC in the same guideline says "delete categories in favor of lists". And you've made no argument as to why the disadvantages listed at DOAL (which, again, are given as inherent in the list format generally) apply to this list in such a way that it is unsalvageable. postdlf (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You did dismiss my argument which is based in the same guideline (albeit a different paragraph) which you cite. That's selectively dismissing according to your own convenience. You did not argue, countering my argument, you just dismissed it as irrelevant, wrong or whatever. So here is an explanation for you: DOAL 5 and 6 apply because there are now about 40 names in Category:Artists from Brooklyn and anther 7 names in this List which are not there. That's already 50 certain candidates. There are also about 700 names in Category:Artists from New York City many of whom were just not diffused to the subcat and are from Brooklyn, or they may have set foot in Brooklyn once and, due to the uncertain inclusion criteria, may be added here. Then there is Category:Artists from New York (statewide) and Category:American artists where the same applies, so we have more than a thousand candidates to be added to this list under the current criteria. There are also new entries, new articles, and artists from other states and countries (for example, Zittel [Californian] and Okamura [Canadian] are there already) which increases the size ever more. In the end, as DOAL 5 says, you'll get "bogged down with entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion" and DOAL 6 adverts: "Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles [or a list of all people from a major populated place with a wide-ranging qualifier like "artist" my adaptation of the example ) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable." Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page, and per policy that should be attempted at length before anyone throws up their hands and says it's unworkable. As there has not even been a substantive talk page discussion on that yet (particularly since the nominator jumped to this second AFD before the ink was dry on the first one), it is at best premature to make that claim. But none of the concerns you have raised (nor the straw men or slippery slope panic invoked by the nominator) over the threshold for how lengthy or significant the contact with Brooklyn must be, are particular to this list but equally apply to any list of people from a given place (e.g., List of people from California), not to mention the corresponding category Category:People from Brooklyn (and your agreement that the category does correspond to this list is an implicit disagreement with the nominator that this is a "fundamentally different" list from the first AFD). We're always making editorial judgments regarding what's trivial to include in an article and what's relevant, even outside of lists and categories. And even if there are examples on the border that people may reasonably disagree on, it's not reasonably disputed that there will be plenty of verifiable entries that unequivocably qualify, so uncertainty over a few cannot justify deletion of the whole. Further, even assuming your speculation that this list will balloon to hundreds of articles, the obvious solution for dealing with an overly long list without deleting it is to split into sublists (as could be done here by time period, medium, etc.). Again, with only 50 candidates identified for inclusion on this list at present, that's not a problem we're facing any time soon. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 20 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.