Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of copywriters


 * 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. Per WP:NOTAVOTE; I've determined that the keep "votes" provide stronger arguments than those in favor of deletion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

List of copywriters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This list (1) is pointless (who is ever going to come looking for it?); (2) can never be complete and useful, given the vast number of copywriters (whatever that means) in the world; (3) is a magnet for spam; (4) is made redundant by the category "copywriters".  GNUSMAS :  TALK  08:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is redundant to Category:Copywriters, as its inclusion criteria basically means that every copywriter who as a wikipedia article should be on this list. It doesn't offer anything that the category doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * The above two arguments are, I think, well and truly refuted by WP:CLN.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lists can offer things that categories can't, but this does not mean they always do. If you want to rework this list into something that offers more than the category it currently duplicates then I'll reconsider my !vote. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It already does, Thryduulf. Because I can watchlist this, but I can't watchlist a category.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and Thryduulf.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "magnet for spam" is not a valid argument for deletion (and in point of fact there is no spam on this page). There is significant additional information beyond what is on the category page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is no spam because I keep deleting it!  GNUSMAS :  TALK  13:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that, just like I keep deleting spam from List of social networking websites and other lists: that's why we watch, the system works, and again, it is not a reason for deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes, a list may be useful, but I see no reason for maintaining this list. I might want to scan a List of composers, but my judgment is that "copywriters" is an imprecise term, and not useful for a list. There has to be some judgment here otherwise every category would also have a list. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just as people might want to peruse a list of composers, a list of copywriters is interesting in and of itself, too, especially for those who are copywriters themselves.--Gloriamarie (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Lists of composers are more useful and interesting to read because they provide information that is not provided by the categories - see List of major opera composers and Category:Opera composers, then compare them to List of copywriters and Category:Copywriters. If this list were restructured to be something like the list of composers then it would offer something that Category:Copyrighters doesn't. At present it doesn't and so my vote to delete as redundant stands. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree, but the assertion by the primary editor that it's easier to watch and keep spam off the list is what convinces me, it's a valid argument to me.--Gloriamarie (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no list, there will be no spam on that list. Conversely, having a list and keeping it spam-free will not help keep articles on alleged copywriters spam free (the category will still exist). Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Lists are not redundant to categories - see Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've commented on this discussion previously, some lists are not redundant to categories, but this one is, because it offers no more indexing than does the category. Feel free to improve the list so it does if you want, but nobody has in the nearly two weeks this has been up for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2009 (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.