Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of painters


 * 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. Bduke 07:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lists of painters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Redundant to Category:Lists of painters. The usual reason for having a list that duplicates a category is the ability to add redlinks and encourage new articles. This reason doesn't apply to lists of lists such as this, because list guidelines state that redlinks and nonexistant lists should not be added to these, so this does nothing the category can't. Masaruemoto 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as I feel like the category is sufficient to serve this purpose Corpx 04:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirect to the category . I think this is a case in which a list has no substantial advantage over a category. A redirect would be useful since "List of X" is a common search query. — xDanielx T/C 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep. Since this is a list of lists, it makes a lot of sense to reference this parent list in a "See also" section of the child lists. The main issue I have with only using a category in this case is that category links tend to draw very little attention. I expect that many readers browsing a list of Spanish painters might be interested in other similar lists, but aren't likely to notice the parent category. I'm undecided as to whether it's best to have a list + category or just a list, but I'd prefer either option over just a category. — xDanielx T/C 06:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also good to be able to link down to this, eg from Lists of people by occupation. Kappa 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point — xDanielx T/C 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There is much more in this list than in the category, and more could usefully be added. The real problem in this area, which this nomination would make worse rather than better, is the overlap and duplication between "artists" and "painters" lists and categories. The category page rightly refers readers to the article for more lists. Johnbod 12:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod 12:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This list is not a problem. It is an alternative method of accessing information for those that prefer using lists and their display layouts to categories, which can be rather complicated. It includes more information than the category, under "See also", which can be expanded. Tyrenius 12:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - these lists and the category are useful, necessary and important, especially for Visual Arts editors, Modernist 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - not every country on Lists of painters is in Category:Lists of painters, Americans don't have a list of painters - I just added American artists before and after the 20th century to the category of painters just in case. I just might revert myself - because as Johnbod and Tyrenius point out this can begin to get very complicated. Modernist 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As it is not listcruft and links to other lists which maybe those can be categorize.--JForget 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and list is redundent.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything in WP:NOT that this contravenes. Tyrenius 03:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This is an overall list of lists of Notable painters from different countries, positively Not redundant. Modernist 03:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with lists of artists. Kappa 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They are distinct entities, and it makes it more confusing if someone wants to find painters specifically, but not other artists, such as sculptors, printmakers, conceptual artists etc. Tyrenius 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually merging these two articles to Lists of artists and painters (or and sculptors etc) is not a bad idea. Merging the individual list articles, to keep these distinctions listed, would probably be a good idea, but an awful lot of work. In most cases, the painters lists seem a lot bigger, although in theory it would be the other way round.  Johnbod 18:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please lets not mix apples, oranges, tomatoes and cantaloupes - Modernist 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble is they are already mixed, and it may be necessary to look in two places to find someone, but many people won't realize this. In theory all the painters are in artists, in practice they are not. But that is not really an issue for this debate, now it has gone so far. Johnbod 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Organizational articles should be judged at least in part on their usefulness, and i would not support removing a fundamental article like this that clearly helps in navigating a very confusing group of other lists. WP uses both categories and lists as organizational devices, and it makes sense to me to organize lists using a list (and categories using a category). DGG (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2007 (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.