Deletion of List of women art historians

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: The list has been significantly improved since my earlier !vote: the density of names with linked articles is now much higher (although still not yet close to one; it looks like that change is still in progress) and there is some referenced introductory text on the general subject. I'm still not entirely convinced that this topic meets  but it is a lot better and I want to hold off on deciding again until this set of changes is complete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as the original Article For Deletion nominator, I am finding that the superior efforts by some editors to find references that I missed have brought the topic to a point where we have, if not yet 100% solidly crossed a rubicon of notability, reached the point where it seems quite likely that line will be crossed with a bit more development. To avoid the  concerns, I feel we should limit it not just to blue links, but to blue links+names with references that suggest a high likelihood of being able to meet notability requirements should an article be created. (As example, a reference to a listing in the Dictionary of Art Historians would qualify; a basic listing on a faculty list would not), and where that reference includes mention of the individuals gender (not because we should list only those for whom the gender is a significant attribute, but for the mundane reason that, well, we've already had to take one man off of the list; names that sound feminine to a modern American may be masculine in other places and times.)For those of you new to the Articles For Deletion process, let me note that my change in stance does ''not'' stop the process; other editors have waded in with their own arguments for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: per , which states, ''"There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."'' This seems like an appropriate cross-categorization that fulfills "recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes" since one can see similar lists at :Category:Lists of women by occupation. I think there should be a List of art historians as well; :Category:Art historians does exist. If this list is kept, then we should add Paula Hays Harper to the list. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/arts/design/paula-hays-harper-feminist-art-historian-dies-at-81.html Here is her obituary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: could someone explain to me why lists such as this one are permitted on WP at all?  says "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines" but these policies are routinely flouted in hundreds of article such as this one. Take the first name - it just says "Adams, Ann", none of the other boxes are filled in, no reference, no link to another WP article (although that would not count as a reference), nothing. How do we know there is even such a person, never mind an art historian notable enough to be on WP? It could be somebody's auntie that a bored teenaged added to the list as a joke. IMO all these list articles are just stupid and worthless as encyclopedia articles, every name on that list should be deleted unless it is cited to a reliable source establishing notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SAL)

Comment: as per many others here.  On two grounds:  1)  are lacking for almost all of this list, suggesting a lack of notability of the subject.  2) What references there are, are almost entirely to a website called 'www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org', suggesting that even if the article was well-referenced, it would be a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: As it stands, this is a nothing more than a poorly-sourced list of names.  As mentioned previously, Wikipedia is not a directory, and very few of the art historians listed within the article currently have a Wikipedia page, which I believe undermines the notability of the list.  Meanwhile, in attempting to keep the article, the creator has threatened to write to Ms Magazine, mentioned football a few times, attempted to justify the article through , tried to turn the deletion debate into men vs. women, and has been downright rude to
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: At this point, this is one of the worst examples of a |directory page that I have seen in a long time. I agree completely with {{u|Drmies}}: the goal is worthy, but this is the wrong means. With a little bit more effort than what went into this particular disaster, an editor could use the Dictionary Of Art Historians to create dozens or more articles on women that are art historians. That's another strange part of this list, by the way: it's a list of art historians, many are indicated to have "art historian" as a profession (rather superfluous, it would seem, in a list of art historians), but even more surprising, many have no profession at all... Anyway, to redress the (indeed existing) imbalance of coverage that currently favors male academics, it is better to create good biographies of women than listcruft like this. Like Drmies, I'd be willing to change my !vote if this article would be pruned along the lines that he indicates
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: per nom and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADIRECTORY)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: This list does, or could reasonably be expanded to, fulfil 's criteria of Information, Navigation, and Development. Information, because if expanded to be searchable by date and location, it would inform readers about the historical development and geographical dispersal of women working in art history; in particular, it would provide this information which categorization alone would not de. Navigation, because it is a natural place for those looking for articles on female art historians and feminist art history to find relevant articles. And Development, because this list provides a good way of keeping track of whether Wikipedia is doing a good job of covering women in art history. Contrary to the nominators claim that female art historians is not a topic with significant coverage, the gender of art historians is in fact a widely discussed topic in feminist art history; a simple Google search, for instance, turned up this collection of relevant resources: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199920105/obo-9780199920105-0034.xml . The fact that there are no List of art historians or List of male art historians articles isn't relevant; the fact that no-one has taken the effort to make those lists doesn't mean that this list doesn't fulfil Wikipedia's criteria on its own merits
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP)