Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian cartoonists

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australian cartoonists

List of Australian cartoonists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Badly maintained, incomplete list that replicates existing category Delete Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• If more context was added (maybe DOB/DOD, career length, "style", major publications, awards, etc?) was added to make this list greater than that of a reformatted category, I would be inclined to keep. Unless this is done by someone with an interest in the subject before the conclusion of the AfD, delete. -- saberwyn 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless there's something in it more than just a list of names (which there isn't), use the Category:Australian cartoonists. —Moondyne 06:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete adds nothing to the category. John Vandenberg 06:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question/Comment We have a List of Jewish American cartoonists. What makes List of Australian cartoonists more worthy of deletion? Usedup 07:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because another article exists, doesn't mean that this article (or both) fail the inclusion criteria and should be deleted. There's a section in an essay that deals with this more, at the shortcut WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In reply, the Jewish-Yank list is slightly better than the Aussie list, because some context on what each individual does is provided, but I will shed no tears if this too is deleted or converted into a category. -- saberwyn
  • You might well ask what makes those Jewish cartoonists more worthy of keeping! ;) --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete lists of people without explicit objective membership criteria. Lists are useful if membership of the list implies notability, and red links can show missing articles in Wikipedia. That goes for both the subject of this debate and List of Jewish American cartoonists and several hundred other ill-defined and incompletable lists of people. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pending expansion and references It's ok to have both a category and a list on the same topic, but only if the list isn't just a copy-and-paste of the category. Otherwise there's no point to having both. So in its current form I'd say delete, but will reconsider if the list can be expanded so that it provides additional information about the individual entries that a category can't (ie make it an alamanc style list with some brief info about the people next to their names, and include references for verification). Dugwiki 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve, perfectly valid list. Jcuk 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Where do you propose to find independent NPOV sources for complete membership of the list that rules out every highschool art student who draws a caricature of their teacher, but include all of the "right" people? --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The subjects of a list must be notable just like the subjects in a category. Why would we want a list of every high school artist? -- Black Falcon 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This "vote" feels like a cope-out. I think it might have something to do with the fact that I mentioned List of Jewish American cartoonists. Usedup 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Cartoonists are not abundant enough to merit lists and there is no apparent relationship between a person's ethnicity or nationality and their ability to make comic books or cartoons. This is the "overlisting" version of overcategorization. Usedup 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The same objection applies to Category:Australian cartoonists. -- Black Falcon 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but Category:Australian cartoonists isn't up for deletion. In my opinion, that category is overcategorization. Australian artists seems good enough. Or even a category for Australian comics, since a cartoonist might be relevant to a certain Australian-based comic book. Like I implied before, there aren't THAT many notable Australians who work primarily as cartoonists. While we're at it, Australian Cartoonist's Association should go too. I would say the same for all other categories of ethnicities and occupations similar in fine detail to this. Usedup 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification. I think, however, that the categorisation system should not be overgeneralised, as this makes categories unusable. There is a major difference between painters, musicians, and cartoonists, so I don't think it would aid navigation to lump them all together. Imagine if Category:American artists did not have any subcats: there'd be over a thousand entries to sift through--the category would become utterly useless. -- Black Falcon 08:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't have a problem with splitting categories when necessary and I don't think anyone does. Usedup 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I would support retention of a list if the conditions outlined by Saberwyn was met. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete incompletable list with very inspecific criteria for inclusion. Lankiveil 11:23, 4 March 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.