Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual list of American artists


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Visual list of American artists
Although I appreciate what the author was trying to do with this article it is not suitable for Wikipedia for two reasons (1)WP:NOT a collection of media files and loading the page chokes a broadband connection (2)I don't think that images from modern artists could be used under fair use in an article of this nature creating a copyright headache. Delete.--nixie 07:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Thelb 4  08:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, showing the paintings helps describe the artists. Kappa 12:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Good idea, but not what wikipedia is all about... Stu 14:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not sure that this is a good direction for WP to go in, although it is a really interesting page, but AFD is not the place to decide it. Take it to the Village Pump for more comment. Trollderella 16:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, each image needs copyright verified but article itself is really cool Tedernst 20:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it took forever to load with a broadband connection and will only get worse as it becomes more complete. The paintings should be in the artists' articles. We have U.S. artists and U.S. painters categories that can be used for navigation.
 * Yep, the users can probably guess what kind of paintings they do from their names. Kappa 22:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft that would be better served by a category. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Um categories cannot even be annotated, let alone illustrated. Kappa 22:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyright headache. Jkelly 00:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but not for lack of merit. I like the concept and think it could be easily applied to less broad concepts, viz. to illustrate German Expressionism in the context of an article on the whole Expressionist movement.  That would be extremely useful in illustrating an artist's or genre's work.  (Call it like having a set of nice color plates in a paper encyclopedia.)  As it is, though, a grand article about a Visual List of American Artists is too broad and unencyclopedic to be useful, and, as such, should be deleted. - Sensor 03:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * weak delete pending discussion at the village pump, this really need to be broken up, the exntant page takes much too long to load. I would vote keep if this were borken up.


 * 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.