450:. I raised this issue on the article's talk page. Specifically: "What's the criteria for listing here? Should the artist have been born in this country? Is reputation a factor? Are we wasting our time on a list that cannot be complete?" I might suggest the following. Allow this list by do not allow names for which there is no biographical information. In this way, the user can read a bio to determine information about the artist which, hopefully, puts him/her in context. This also prevents a random list of names with no context whatsoever. For example, I added the name George McConnell, but did not add a biography. This would force me to create his bio first, and then add his name to the list. Let me also point out that there are many references to biographies of American artists that are alphabetical with no further categorization. For example, the three volume reference Who Was Who in American Art (Falk, ed.).
121:
better, i.e. List of 18th century
American Artists, etc, List of American Artists born 1900-1950, then List of American Artists born 1950-75 and then 1976-. At least all the contemporary ones and the self-noms would be in one place to see easily if they merited a place. This would also create a historical context for the artists. There are also other artists lists that will need assessing, but let's take one at a time.
149:
be a bit rag tag & bobtail? You also have architects & doubtless other types in there; the criteria for inclusion need to be defined. Obviously the concept of the list is fine; its just the practicality. Having separate lists by century is not attractive; there are all sorts of overlap problems. It's not in that bad a state. I have problems like this at
166:
I'm up for any meaningful and usable organisation, but this is no good to anyone, apart from unknown artists sneaking their name in. I've suggested retaining smaller lists. Using dates at least gives a rigid definition so that everyone knows where they are. Dates will also do a rough and ready job of
291:
Do you mean a central list from which the specialised ones could be accessed? That would work. The real problem here is the amount of contemporary artists who swamp the rest. At the very least there should be a list of historic (i.e. dead) and contemporary (i.e. living) artists. The latter would be
148:
Can't you just divide it by periods instead of alphabetically, put a notice on saying redlinks (and external spam links) will be deleted, & maybe have a "major contemporary artists" section that is policed, and then another "other contemporary artists" one at the end that you accept will have to
187:
If you have lists (or categories) by century, you have to put loads of people in two of them. The list isn't that long & the older periods would be quite short; as you say the problem is the contemporaries. I think you have have to keep redlinks out; there are other places (Visual arts project/
120:
The subject of this list is unworkable, simply because it's too vast and is going to get bigger and bigger, but unfortunately with less and less notable artists and more and more contemporary ones, swamping the significant figures that one would wish to stand out. Smaller lists would work much
387:
As it stands, this list is of very little use. It is just a list of (potentially many thousands of) names, providing no context for each name—which is precisely what a category is. To be useful, the names in such a list would need to be categorized by genre of art. Moreover, the definition of
171:
to be older. Good red links provide a valuable function to show articles that need to be written, so this purpose is also defeated by the present arrangement (though the new blue links are a good way of tracking down non notable contemporary artists.. ;)
323:
I'm no expert, but isn't the generation of this type of list precisely what categories are for? So if anything, I'd suggest a set of narrower categories that include time period and nationality (i.e., 19th century
American artists or whatnot).
292:
even better subdivided. If there was a list of people born after, say 1975, it would catch a lot of the not-terribly-notables (but just notable enough to survive an AfD) and make the other lists far easier to read.
153:& its daughter articles; better a messy list than no list. There already is a category of course, and people are always being encouraged to put categories into lists, not the other way around
337:
I'm no expert on categories (or lists - I tend to avoid them -mainly because there's too many like this one!), but an earlier comment said the encouragement was for lists rather than cats.
367:
Sounds as if what we really need is the equivalent of an index, which is essentially what lists are, but conceiving of them in that way might make it easier to decide what lists to have.
354:) - "Listify" is the regular cry. I think this is quite right by the way; lists sit quietly by themselves; categories have to be in every article, are much harder to rearrange etc.
510:/change to category. CfD "listify" cries are usually based, from what I can tell, on over-categorization. Something as broad as American Artists is, IMO, perfect for a category.
113:
464:- I believe that something as broad as his would be best suited as a category or nothing at all. Then the criteria for inclusion are a bit more simplified in terms of notability.
392:
is so broad that the number of people who could be listed is vast—too vast for one page. This list should be a category, and not surprisingly there already is such a category:
258:
It is nevertheless established that wiki does have lists (lots of them). What we need are lists that are useful and usable. This requires the right definition to start with.
424:
an indiscriminate collection of information, listcruft. There are many
American artists. It's simply impossible to compile it into a list, a category will be much easier.
86:
81:
90:
513:
494:
73:
17:
230:
208:
as unmaintainable and unwieldy. I think a compromise between two ideas above can be reached - multiple categories per period. --
525:
241:. An article on American Art that said something of substance about these artists would be encyclopedia, a simple list violates
546:
305:
Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. I have no idea what those sub-lists will be, but I do feel they should exist.
77:
555:
529:
500:
454:
440:
428:
412:
400:
371:
358:
341:
328:
309:
296:
282:
262:
249:
233:
212:
192:
176:
157:
138:
125:
55:
570:
36:
393:
278:
which would cover the kind of segmentation suggested in the nomination. Or any other kind of division desired.
569:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
275:
69:
61:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
539:-Lists are terrible, and this one is way too general. We have categories for lists, not mainspace pages. --
306:
279:
409:
478:
466:
225:
425:
521:
550:
451:
220:, The subject is ridiculously broad, making it impossible to keep the list accurate and organised.
540:
325:
52:
246:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
470:
221:
484:
421:
351:
242:
517:
209:
368:
338:
293:
259:
173:
122:
355:
189:
154:
107:
150:
437:
397:
135:
134:
Maybe putting this list into a category would be better, don't you think?
563:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
167:
sorting out major from ragtag contemporary artists, as major
408:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory or a list of lists.
103:
99:
95:
350:
Yes - look at any
Categories for deletion day page (
188:articles needed) for articles that should be done.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
573:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
274:Here's what I say to do: Redirect this to
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
556:00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
530:21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
501:15:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
462:Change to Category or Delete
455:14:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
441:11:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
429:10:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
413:05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
401:02:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
372:02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
359:01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
342:01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
329:01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
310:01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
297:01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
283:01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
263:01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
250:01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
234:01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
213:00:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
193:01:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
177:01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
158:00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
139:00:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
126:00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
56:12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
146:Strong Keep, but reorganize
590:
496:Give Back Our Membership!
394:Category:American artists
276:Lists of American artists
566:Please do not modify it.
70:List of American artists
62:List of American artists
32:Please do not modify it.
516:comment was added by
448:Keep using criterion
410:Philippe Beaudette
554:
533:
469:
581:
568:
545:
511:
497:
487:
481:
465:
307:FrozenPurpleCube
280:FrozenPurpleCube
243:WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
232:
228:
111:
93:
48:
34:
589:
588:
584:
583:
582:
580:
579:
578:
577:
571:deletion review
564:
553:
512:—The preceding
495:
491:
485:
479:
226:
224:
84:
68:
65:
46:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
587:
585:
576:
575:
559:
558:
549:
534:
504:
503:
475:
458:
457:
444:
443:
431:
415:
403:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
362:
361:
345:
344:
332:
331:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
300:
299:
286:
285:
268:
267:
266:
265:
253:
252:
236:
215:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
180:
179:
161:
160:
142:
141:
118:
117:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
586:
574:
572:
567:
561:
560:
557:
552:
548:
544:
543:
538:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
509:
506:
505:
502:
499:
498:
490:
488:
482:
474:
473:
468:
463:
460:
459:
456:
453:
449:
446:
445:
442:
439:
435:
432:
430:
427:
423:
419:
416:
414:
411:
407:
404:
402:
399:
395:
391:
386:
383:
382:
373:
370:
366:
365:
364:
363:
360:
357:
353:
349:
348:
347:
346:
343:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
330:
327:
326:Planetneutral
322:
319:
318:
311:
308:
304:
303:
302:
301:
298:
295:
290:
289:
288:
287:
284:
281:
277:
273:
270:
269:
264:
261:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
248:
244:
240:
237:
235:
231:
229:
223:
219:
216:
214:
211:
207:
204:
203:
194:
191:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
178:
175:
170:
165:
164:
163:
162:
159:
156:
152:
147:
144:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
53:Mailer Diablo
50:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
565:
562:
541:
536:
507:
493:
476:
472:Steve Caruso
471:
461:
447:
433:
417:
405:
389:
384:
320:
271:
247:Shirahadasha
238:
217:
205:
168:
145:
131:
119:
45:
43:
31:
28:
436:per above.
426:Terence Ong
222:Chairman S.
151:Printmaking
518:Geoffspear
210:Dennisthe2
547:Contribs
526:contribs
514:unsigned
369:Tyrenius
339:Tyrenius
294:Tyrenius
260:Tyrenius
174:Tyrenius
123:Tyrenius
114:View log
542:TeckWiz
406:Delete.
385:Delete.
356:Johnbod
272:Comment
190:Johnbod
155:Johnbod
132:Comment
87:protect
82:history
537:Delete
508:Delete
434:Delete
422:WP:NOT
418:Delete
390:artist
352:WP:CfD
321:Delete
239:Delete
218:Delete
206:Delete
91:delete
438:MER-C
398:DanMS
136:Diez2
108:views
100:watch
96:links
49:elete
16:<
522:talk
480:desk
245:. --
227:Talk
169:tend
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
51:. -
486:AMA
467:אמר
396:. ●
112:– (
528:)
524:•
492:•
452:JJ
420:,
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
551:@
532:.
520:(
489:)
483:/
477:(
116:)
110:)
72:(
47:d
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.