Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of performing arts

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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of performing arts

[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)

Just a list of articles which are repeated in the Categories section Robynthehode (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plainly it could be written up in more detail, but there is a solid topic here, and there is wide precedent for "outline of" articles. These are not redundant to categories as they present a synoptic page view divided by type, all visible at once (unlike even the best category hierarchy). The article needs writing up but editing is not a reason for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Outline articles are a central part of the structure of the encyclopaedia. They are linked right on our top level contents page. SpinningSpark 12:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Plainly it could be written up in more detail, but there is a solid topic here, and there is wide precedent for "outline of" articles. Scope of article will be expanded. per WP:PRESERVE. A highly likely search term. No compliance with WP:Before, which should be the first hurdle before deletion. Clearly is improvable per section (C). Many sources at Google, Google books, Google scholar, and HighBeam Research. Article can (and should) be improved; but that is no reason by itself to delete it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 29 October 2018 (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.