Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of syndicated columnists


 * 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. Concerns for deletion appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

List of syndicated columnists

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. An incomplete list that adds very little to WP. It would be better to have the topic as a category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the initial entry, you can see it was created as a stub about syndicated columnists, not as a list. That was almost six years ago, and a lot has changed since then. It was moved to the "list of" title in May 2009 and I agree it's not particularly useful now, but if it went back to being an article about the job itself and expanded, it could be viable. No particular opinion on whether to keep and rename or delete and start fresh. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Print syndication would serve the same purpose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be shoehorned in there, but it's not really the same thing. Print syndication is a business model. A syndicated columnist is a person with a career based upon that business model. Like how waste collection and waste collector have separate articles. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. I don't see any reason to delete this, it seems to easily meet WP:LISTN. There are no rules against lists that could be categories or are incomplete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the current article. This is the definition of something better accomplished with a category; there's nothing in the current article that would be serve as the basis for a different article about the practice itself. Mackensen (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * query&mdash;could nominator maybe point to a policy that suggests deletion? WP:LISTPURP seems to be a policy that suggests that a reason other than "would be better to have the topic as a category" would be good to have.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, there is no reason this information can't exist as both a list and as a category, per WP:CLN, so feel free to make that category in addition to this. That a list is incomplete is irrelevant, as everything on Wikipedia is just a work in progress, and lists of people by occupation are not supposed to list every person that exists who has that job, but only those who merit articles; they are indexes of Wikipedia topics.  The list can be annotated and made sortable by plenty more information than the bare ABC that a category can handle: by birth/death dates and/or dates active, the number of papers/media outlets in which they are syndicated (if that number is meaningfully verifiable in some way, maybe as a high number if it varies throughout their career), the geographic range of their syndication (regional, national, worldwide?), their country of origin, their print syndicate...  And I see it has two redlinks, which may or may not be for columnists who actually merit articles in this case, but at any rate redlinks identifying missing topics is supposed to be one of the functions of lists.  Develop it, don't delete it.  postdlf (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:LISTN. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the basic rationale for deletion is wrong. Lists and categories can and usually should coexist. the criterion for inclusion, as usual, is being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Almost all lists are inherently incomplete, and always will be, because additional people become notable--and ones who were earlier notable get recognized as such and the articles written. If there are ones currently in Wikipedia that shoul dbe added, the solution is to add them.  When we start deleting incomplete articles, we'll be pretty much does to just the featured content.    DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 31 October 2011 (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.