Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor figures in contemporary art


 * 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  Delete--Tone 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor figures in contemporary art

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

It's unclear why someone who is minor belongs on WP. There are many external links in the list. It is not maintained. It is not clear what constitutes a 'minor' figure. I'm not aware of similar lists. Clubmarx (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   —Clubmarx (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no (and perhaps will never be) any meaningful criteria to separate minors and majors. It will never rise above an arbitrary collection of names, as compiling a complete list of minor artists is practically impossible. NVO (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lol, the definition of listcruft. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Potatoswatter DavidWS (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Hey, where's my name? I'm pretty minor as far as these things go. But, yes, this should be deleted per all arguments above.  freshacconci  talk talk  00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. The category contradicts the very criteria for notability. JNW (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons given above. Even with a lot of work, this page by definition could never be objective or complete.  --Lockley (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons given above. Even with a lot of work, this page by definition could never be objective or complete.  --Lockley (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2008 (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.