Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of type designers

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. L Faraone 01:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of type designers

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

This article strikes me as kind of a backward way of just having a category. This should be deleted and whatever notable people remain can be put into a category. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - See WP:CLN, we often have lists/categories that overlap. Redlinks are impossible to contain in categories. Some cleanup and additional referencing would be good though, to emphasise that even redlinks ought to be potentially notable, to prevent it turning into a simple directory of professionals (or interested amateurs) worldwide. –Quiddity (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the relevant policies and guidelines regarding lists of this kind. Any non-notable entries can simply be removed through normal editing, or the articles written to justify notability Per WP:CLN, the mere fact that a category exists does not diminish the usefulness of other forms of organizing the same information. Categories and lists are complementary, because a list can include contextual information which a category cannot. In fact, in practice we seem to have a consistent pattern of AfD decisions that amount to a decision that in the absence of some special reason otherwise, having a category for a profession is reason for a list. It's not a backwards way of having a category--the one we have is Typographers, but a supplemental way. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 30 May 2013 (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.