Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of critics

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 WP:SNOW keep, with direction to appropriately reorganize and/or split the list. BD2412 T 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of critics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taking to AFD after a PROD notice was removed for no discernible reason. This WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of critics doesn't appear to have any criteria aside from being a critic (may have been cherry-picked on some subjective basis) and would be ridiculously long if every critic was included here. Overall, it's just listcruft and we don't need lists of every type of thing imaginable, and I don't see how this could be feasibly managed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually see this as being a bit useful! I learned a thing or two reading it, so it is useful in terms of human knowledge. There has been some discussion at various AfDs about the notability of curators and critics, and this might be helpful in terms of making their role more plain. It could do without the big image at the top though. Sending a neutral ping to @Vexations, Theredproject, Freshacconci, Melcous, and Theroadislong: for their esteemed opinions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It might need to be broken down a bit into List of art critics (ah, I see that already exists), List of television critics and so on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with breaking this down into subpages. Those would give more clear-cut criteria and be easier to manage. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I don't think lists like this are particularly useful because it is so easy to generate them on Wikidata instead (https://w.wiki/MzD took me less than a minute), but, if someone wants to do maintain one, that's well within policy to have one. This particular list fails to meet the definition of listcruft. It is not indiscriminate, the subject Critic is notable, and it is easily verifiable. Guess that's a Keep. Vexations (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I honestly don't have strong opinions about lists(!) this one included. --Theredproject (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Room for improvement, but not indiscriminate. Notable critics are a reasonable topic for a list. I'm surprised the nominator thought this would be uncontroversial. pburka (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reformat - This needs to be sorted out such that the main page is a list of lists. Compare 'lists of journalists'. See 'lists of writers' as well. All that said, I absolutely oppose deletion. We have established precedent for keeping articles structured as 'lists of [occupation]'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN – see this or that, for example. The nomination doesn't "see how this could be feasibly managed" but it seems to have been managing just fine for 16 years now. Our editing policy is to improve such pages, not delete them. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long the page has been around for is irrelevant and that shouldn't be treated as a free pass. Also, with such a wide potential scope, it could easily become messy with unsourced entries and/or people only adding certain types of critics they feel are worth mentioning. Having subpages as other users suggested would avoid such issues. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename as lists of critics with links to standalone lists where they exist. For groupings that don't have such lists, it is easy enough to start an embedded list. For example, searching famous literary critics lends reliable sources that can be used here. Such embedded lists can be spun off whenever they seem a decent length. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you favoring the same idea as ThatMontrealIP and CoffeeWithMarkets by having its content split off into subpages? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am, with the subpages being by the subcategories we see here (not by nationality, for example, as it isn't meaningful on that high of a level). I do want to set a standard, though, with sourcing. Like to have "base" lists of sourced critics to indicate to future editors that additions should be accompanied by sources. Of course that does not always happen, but I think it enables us to "clean out" unsourced additions routinely and link to them on the talk page (or better yet, try to source them). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say that I'd be glad to contribute to that end, like with literary critics or dance critics. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. What we have now is just a comepletely unsourced article, and that doesn't help anything unlike what you've proposed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue linked lists that have no blp information do not need referencing, its just timewasting refbombing, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It sounds like people have ideas for ways to improve this article, in ways that will address some of the nominator's concerns. I think that the nomination has brought attention to the article, which is helpful. At a certain point, this transitions from a discussion about how to improve it, rather than whether it should be deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but don't split for now. This is a article that doesn't need that for now. Maybe in the future when it gets unwieldy, but right now it just needs more notable critics added to it, with maybe some notes on how they are notable. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no split as this adequately covers the similar topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.