Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artworks

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. Dakota 01:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of artworks

This article is a relic from pre-category times. It lists articles on artworks, but does not have a very clear standard of inclusion; it is best described as "some artworks some wikipedians regard as important". I don't really see a future for it: a list of "famous" or "important" artworks will always be POV, and categories are much better at giving an overview of wikipedia's articles. Skarioffszky 09:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Some may find it a useful navigational aid, and I see no harm in leaving it. -- Infrogmation 10:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete Probably better off as "famous" artworks. Can still see some use in it however. Pursey 10:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move per Pursey to List of notable artworks. The list itself says that's what it is. "List of artworks" is potentially infinite, unmaintainable and potentially POV. Is the picture of a "Burdy" my 5-year-old niece drew for me an "artwork" (yes, but nn however cute it is)? At the other end of the scale how about Equivalent VIII; in the view of some not an artwork at all, but definitely notable (though not on the list)? Renaming the article gives a measure of control over the contents. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Weak Delete" per Pursey. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that a move will solve the problem. Every individual artwork that has a wikipedia article is in some way "notable". But we clearly don't want all of them on this list. So what better standard can we use? Fame, importance, influence etc. all seem rather POV and right now the list is almost random, with eight Bouguereaus and no Masaccio. (I could of course add some of my favourites, but that wouldn't solve anything.) Skarioffszky 10:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming_conventions for why that's not a good idea. Uncle G 11:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • As ever, your knowledge of the encyclopædia is enclcylopædic, Uncle G. :-) Tonywalton  | Talk 11:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Skarioffszky. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We have categories now. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, lists are not categories. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, categories work better. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hey guys. Maybe this is non-wikipedia of me, but this seems useful for it's purpose. No categories, no way to judge (but that's art for you), just a long list of paintings I might want to click on. I've been surfing the internet for an hour and this suited my purpose (a list of famous paintings) beautifully. Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.119.142 (talk • contribs).
• Delete too broad, vague, and POV. --musicpvm 12:32, 18 October 2006 (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.