Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native American women artists

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. There is a clear consensus for keep. From those active in the field there is also a significant feeling that this may be an unnecessary contentfork - a merge request may be suitable. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Native American women artists[edit]

[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)

Completely redundant; There are already List of Native American artists and List of Native American women of the United States. If referring to those lists is too onerous to a reader, they could go to Category:Native American women artists. Author is apparently not familiar with Native American art or how it is covered on Wikipedia. List includes men, First Nations artists from Canada (there's already List of indigenous artists of the Americas to go beyond US borders), redlinks, people of dubious Native ancestry. This list looks like it was mainly drafted from a 20-year-old book and will never be well-maintained since it competes with the numerous pre-existing, overlapping lists. Yuchitown (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown (categories)[reply]

Keep as creator (and I am passing familiar with Native American art, thanks for the gratuitous shot there). List of Native American artists is virtually unreferenced, and who cares how old the sources for the list you'd prefer deleted are? I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion being offered here. "It competes with other stuff" is an argument I don't think I've ever seen at AfD before. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see the list as redundant. No policy based rationale given to delete this reliably sourced article. A 20 year old book does not become unreliable with age. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Add to already established lists List of Native American artists, List of Native American women of the United States, and Category:Native American women artists, which cover the same topic. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Aurornisxui list of established articles and categories. Also as someone who has studied Native American art, much of historical Native art was created by women. If the article would expand on that aspect, going into detail, I could see it as a stand alone article. However, as an article consisting of just a list, it can be merged. oncamera 00:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Googling 'native american women artists' brings up this article, but not the category. Categories are for people with some Wikipedia expertise, not for the general searching public. Certainly someone could develop this list by accessing both 'list of native american artists' and 'list of native american women of the US' and figuring out for themselves where the overlap is, but why should they have to when this specific list gets right to the question? valereee (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All entries are blue or sourced, so we don't have the typical indiscriminate-inclusion problems of lists of people. The multiple in-depth sources listed at the end of the list, about the topic as a whole rather than individual list members, makes clear that this is a notable list topic. And the list is formatted in a way that provides significant additional information that a category would not provide. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN, numerous books discuss/cover this subject including American Women Artists: From Early Indian Times to the Present, A Song To The Creator: Traditional Arts of Native American Women of the Plateau, An Encyclopedia of Women Artists of the American West, Women Artists of Color: A Bio-critical Sourcebook to 20th Century Artists in the Americas. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, and there's no real hazard of indiscriminate inclusion. XOR'easter (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a useful list on a notable subject. Deletion doesn't serve a purpose here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, and useful for the purposes of the encyclopedia and its users. Netherzone (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument for deletion, merge, or redirect to the category (which may be the best option re google-fu), imho, is not that it "competes with other stuff." The argument for me is that there is only a bare handful of us who actually maintain any quality control on these articles and lists, and we are constantly having to deal with the problems Yuchitown lists. Most Wikipedians don't know how to evaluate sourcing on Native American articles, so they list non-Natives, or others who don't belong on these lists, including WP:vanispamcruftisement. It's a perennial issue on WP. This will snow as a keep because the idea sounds fine, and then the same tiny group of us who do the work will be stuck with trying to keep it from being terrible. And no, I'm not asking for more general volunteers who are unfamiliar with the topics to edit the articles... not unless people are willing to learn how to evaluate sources in this particular field. WP has a serious inherent bias problem in this area, and the few of us working on this are tired and overworked. We already have a backlog of articles that need cleanup. And this will be yet another. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:CorbieVreccan unfortunately, lack of manpower to maintain is never a valid reason to delete an article. You can take help from relevant wikiprojects if you are overworked. --DBig Xrayᗙ 23:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about those of us in "the relevant wikiprojects." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm from the relevant wikiproject as well, WP:Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America, and I am a Native American woman artist. Women artists have far greater standing in the Native American art world than they do in the mainstream art world, and segregating us out of the primary conversation of Native art is not helpful. I should have proposed merging as opposed to deletion; however, I will not be editing this list—there's far more useful and needed articles and lists on Wikipedia that demand attention. Yuchitown (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[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.