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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of concluded webcomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

Orphaned list, blatant redlink bait. Fewer than half the entries have articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 100% unreferenced redlink farm. Might be okay as a category though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Lists of this type are very appropriate for Wikipedia, even if they contain red wikilinks. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 02:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete everything ends, why have a separate list for currently active and dead comics? We don't do that for dead tree comics, do we? 76.66.196.13 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wow. Alright, this probably is a more useful list than List of webcomics referencing penises in their 150th issues, but not by a whole lot. I agree with Andrew that a viable category could be sustained, but I can't see how an article is appropriate; this is close to a WP:BULLSHIT failure.  Ravenswing  16:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but categorize, per above. It appears that Category:Concluded webcomics already exists (since 2005). I've categorized all that weren't already in there. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , and encyclopedias are intended to be a permanent record, included both what was important. 76.96, we should have a list of notable ceased paper comics also. Quiddity, RG, on what actual reason do you think there should only be a category? (Personally, I think the only reason is if there are too few things for a viable list, like less than five. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Partially because I'm unsure that it's a notable criterion for differentiating content (i.e. it's better than "webcomics that use color" or "webcomics that run gueststrips", but not much). I'm not even sure if it's a viable category (no other "concluded" media categories exist). The only comparison I can think of is "defunct companies" (hmm, that leads to Category:Former entities, in which the "Lists of former entities" subcat is fairly sparse, but the other subcats are more abundant than I recalled. So a category might be viable? I've never been very familiar with our cat system). There don't seem to be any categories or lists for "television shows that have ended/concluded", which would be the obvious go-to comparison. (2) And partially because it is often hard to distinguish between "hiatus" and "concluded", in the realm of webcomics. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary, poorly executed fork of List of webcomics. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2010 (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.