Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of 100 art materials every encyclopedia should have




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Though the MFD tag was missing from the page for almost the entire duration of the discussion, having been removed by User:RichardMcCoy, I'm not going to bother relisting this when there is enough participation to determine consensus. However, due to the procedural problem, I've no problem if someone wishes to relist this fairly soon. Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

List of 100 art materials every encyclopedia should have
However laudable this list may be, Wikipedia is not a webhost. Even were it to be changed to focus on Wikipedia it is redundant to the mainspace article List of artistic mediums.

See also List of 100 art techniques every English encyclopedia should have Nancy  talk  15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this, Nancy.
 * I'm not sure I understand why this has been proposed for deletion. Please keep it and remove the deletion banner.
 * It is focused on Wikipedia. The rational is here.  Additionally, art materials are different than artistic mediums.
 * I'd be happy to have any suggestions to contextualize it in a way that was more clear. Thanks,--Richard McCoy (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This list, and the other one mentioned is intended to be along the same lines as Vital articles. I believe that this was listed for deletion under the assumption that it was attempting to be a mainspace index of some sort. This is not the case. The list is the beginnings of an attempt by the art-museum community to see what articles in their area of expertise are a) missing and b) bad. Witty Lama 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about moving it to a subpage within the relevent Wikiproject? Nancy  talk  16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The list seems to be intended as an incentive for museum people to join Wikipedia in it's encyclopedic aim. Therefore I don't understand why NOTWEBHOST shall be the reason for deletion. Could WikiProject Museums be the appropriate subpage incubator until the results move to the mainspace? --ThT (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited WP:NOTWEBHOST based on the title of the page which suggests its scope is way beyond Wikipedia. Nancy  talk  16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the title could be improved. Knowing the intention of the The Wikipedia Lists of 100 Project I'd suggest to WP:AGF, reconsider the WP:MFD and help the museum people to enjoy a welcoming atmosphere of collaboration. --ThT (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it should remain and be built upon...Modernist (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the title of the article, merged the three lists into one, and added an introduction to explain the purpose of the article. See the new page at: List of 100 Art concepts Wikipedia should have Witty Lama 20:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Honestly, people: think about what's important and what isn't. The page violates no policy and is part of an attempt to help the encyclopedia and its readers by getting ideas from museum experts. If it did violate a policy, I'd favor keeping it under WP:IAR since it is glaringly obvious that deleting it would hurt the encyclopedia. This deletion effort makes WP look bad. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No policy violation shown - the list gives its own rationale for existence (showing redlinks), and appears properly used for that purpose. Collect (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Probably wants to be filed under some relevant project (an appropriate page rename is fine by me), but there's no reason to delete this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.