Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British comic strips

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of British comic strips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems absurdly broad in scope when various categories exist. Obviously the list is currently incomplete, but if it were it would cover everything in the Eagle, Beano, Dandy, 2000AD, Viz, Lion, Buster, Battle and Tammy for starters, which I'd estimate at around a thousand plus strips instantly. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete I’m sure someone is going to show up and start waving WP:NLIST and “valid navigational lists” around shortly, but I’m voting per WP:IAR. Nobody maintains these, they’re wildly over-broad in scope, and most readers arrive from internal links in prose articles and internal/external searches anyway so the benefit of a “navigational” list is negligible. Replace per Thryduulf. Pointless duplicate of existing lists. Dronebogus (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Improving the list is wonderful, but I will indeed cite WP:NLIST and refer to the hundreds of books that have discussed British comic strips as a group. —siroχo 07:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hopes for refactoring/improvement as discussed above, per Siroxo. No objection to improvement or wholesale replacement per Thryduulf. There seems to be no dispute that this meets WP:NLIST. I agree with Dronebogus' now-struck comment that NLIST, like all Wikipedia rules, ultimately derives any authority it has from serving our encyclopedic purpose (i.e. being a valid invocation of WP:IAR against itself). But I believe in this case NLIST does in fact serve the encyclopedia by pushing us toward a positive-sum solution. I am but a humble ignoramus in this topic area, but based on the discussion and links here it seems to me that an optimal approach would be to break out the list by magazine/publisher and discuss those outlets that already have lists of their own in summary style. Whatever the best solution, the current "known vs. lesser known" breakdown can surely be improved upon. -- Visviva (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Viva admin. Okoslavia (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering everyone's thoughts I'm more than happy to withdraw the AfD (if that needs doing, obviously moot considering the votes). As I seem to be the only active editor with interest in the field I'm interested in working to salvage the page as part of an ongoing attempt to bring a worthy but neglected area closer to Wikipedia's modern standards. Does anyone have any examples of lists that could function as a template for improving the page? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! There's the famous List of lists of lists you could start from. —siroχo 08:49, 11 July 2023 (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.