Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanity Fair caricatures

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. - Philippe 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair caricatures

This is a list of cartoons from Vanity Fair (1868-1914). I totally fail to see its point or usefulness. I would understand if Commons had a gallery of the cartoons (some of them must be in public domain due to age), but having a list that only says "caricature of x politician appeared on y date"... Wikipedia is not a place to dump indiscriminate lists of caricatures. Renata (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, as Renata suggests, Wikipedia might benefit from having those caricatures which are in the public domain scanned and put on Commons. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have used this list several times and found it very helpful. These caricatures were very well-known at the time and are of considerable historical significance. They give a real insight into British Victorian and Edwardian society. Obviously, it would be helpful to add more of the actual images, so why don't you do so? I wish people would focus on adding useful information to Wikipedia, rather than removing the hard work of others. Edwardx (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and perhaps Move to List of Vanity Fair caricatures) I have also referred to this list several times and as Edwardx says, they're quite well-known. Craigy (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have your cake and eat it too. Those cartoons in the public domain should be uploaded to commons, but there are sources: Scholar, ZOMG website, books. The cartoons represent (largely) elite opinion on many issues. They are important for getting a perspective on how prevalent racism and classicism was in those days. I'm *fairly* certain that VF cartoons have been cited in The Mismeasure of Man as well. Very notable and very useful. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Time Magazine covers are also iconic, well-known, even today. Yet we do not have the list of people who appeared on the covers and I would still fail to see the point or usefulness. I am not saying that caricatures are not important. I am saying that their list is not really useful. There is no way that I can see from the list how "prevalent racism and classicism was in those days". Renata (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asserting that the article (as it stands) asserts those claims. I'm just showing that the cartoons themselves have been subjects of historical study and comment in reliable, secondary publications. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It could be argued that compiling a list of Time Magazine covers would be a useful project to record historically significant figures of the twentieth century, much as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year recognises people who have influenced the events of a particular year Richard.shakeshaft (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can a complete and reliable list of all the caricatures not be a useful resource, especially when no such list is available elsewhere in the public domain? Today, these caricatures are collected by many people and this is now an great encyclopaedic resouce enabling people to date prints and to find out more information about the subjects of the pictures. Indeed, if you follow the links for various subjects a scan of the caricature is sometimes available on the individual pages. Overall, I fail to see how this list is any less helpful than, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duo_and_trio_cocktails Richard.shakeshaft (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Edwardx and Richard Shakeshaft. George Burgess (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2008 (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.