Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of web comics

List of web comics was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

List has been eclipsed by Category:Web comics. External links, start & end dates, and authorship info found here is also found in the individual web comics' articles. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep. Strongly oppose deletion.  This list has its use in that all that information is in one place, something I find a lot more useful than just a category listing which provides no information beyond 'yep, it's a web comic alright'. Gamaliel 01:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I understand Gwalla's redundancy concern, but it's a lot easier to monitor the list for changes than to find new articles popping up in a large category. Kudos to Gwalla for merging the info found in the list but not the articles though. I had a snarky "are you volunteering to do the work" comment ready and didn't get to use it. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep- the list is a useful means for looking up new materials & cross-referencing, as distinct from categorizing it. -FZ 03:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I strongly oppose any deletion of a list in favor of a category, just for the record. Not that anyone cares. :P --Tothebarricades.tk 04:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories do not supercede list articles.  RickK 04:33, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I too would strongly oppose the deletion of this list - it has a lot of useful information not found in the category listing - Zaphod Beeblebrox 05:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The extra info in the list makes it more useful. Mindspillage 16:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think all unannotated lists without source references should be cleaned up and annotated or deleted as untrustworthy. But this isn't an unannotated list. Jallan
 * Keep. List articles usually contain some non-existent articles. When someone looks at the list, they might be inclined to create such articles. The info from the list page could also be copied to the category page. RedWolf 03:21, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: We've actually been deleting entries without articles, because there's a serious tendency for this list to attract WikiSpam in the form of article-less entries with external links.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories and Lists should complement each other. As noted above, a category cannot possibly contain an item without an article (I am not personally in favour of the "policy" created recently of removing entries without articles: this seem rather non-wiki to me). Also I was under the impression that adding a Category to your watchlist only monitors changes to the description of the category, not to the addition of an article, so there is a distinct difference in functionality. Finally it is not unusual to find certain limited information duplicated in a list and the articles referred to: it is usual, for example, for lists of people to include birth/death dates as appropriate (for disambiguation purposes if nothing else) which obviously would also appear in the article referred to. --Phil | Talk 13:03, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)