Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of painters by name


 * 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. S warm  ♠  04:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

List of painters by name

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This request also applies to all 26 linked pages. Indiscriminate and unmaintainable list. For example, no new names (except one moving from List of painters by name beginning with "G") are added to List of painters by name beginning with "A" for nearly five years. There are more than 30000 articles about painters. GZWDer (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – These articles fully qualify per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Painters and subcategories therein. They are also functional navigational aids per WP:LISTPURP. The lists are not indiscriminate because virtually all of the links are blue-linked to valid Wikipedia articles. The few that are redlinked can be verified with sources. Also, the lists are quite easily maintainable, as evidenced by their neat and organized state at this time. See WP:NOEFFORT regarding articles that are not being continuously worked on. North America1000 18:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and request close per the arguments above. Again, like List of Islands by name, there's no good reason that pages like this should be removed only for the encyclopedia to become less convenient for the reader. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this article has zero value. Curro2 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the 10,319 viewers of the page in January 2016 would likely disagree with the notion of the article having "zero value". Otherwise, why would so many people view and use the page? The high page views further qualify the lists functionality as per WP:LISTPURP. North America1000 20:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I viewed it. I still view it as totally unencylopedic. I would delete every list page if I could. I prefer encyclopedia articles that have substantive content, not 'look at all this stuff we found'. I could start a page on French painters of the 6th century named Francois and maybe I'd find a few entries to add to the list but ultimately the page should not exist. Curro2 (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not the most familiar with the guidelines for these types of articles, but arguments against these pages like "I still view it as totally unencylopedic. I would delete every list page if I could. I prefer encyclopedia articles that have substantive content, not 'look at all this stuff we found'" seem to be in bad faith given the seemingly valid Keep arguments above. And again, I don't see what's wrong with making an encyclopedia more convenient for the reader thanks to pages like this. Sorry, but these "unencylopedic" pages may have to do. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 22:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should re-read WP:AGF before accusing someone of bad-faith editing when they disagree with you. Curro2 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and I would've closed this as such as this list seems quite beneficial. SwisterTwister   talk  05:13, 10 February 2016 (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.