Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies


 * 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. Per CSD G5 and SNOW — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think this makes sense as an encyclopedia article. For one thing it's closer to trivia than encyclopedic content but more fundamentally, it's a list with murky and subjective inclusion criteria that poses major original research problems. For instance, I don't think Brad Pitt is "well known for his role" in the Ocean's Trilogy and Ocean's Eleven is more of a heist film than an action film anyways. Isn't Police Story the series that Jackie Chan is well known for? Maybe that's just in Hong Kong. And what's a series? Three, four? Is two enough? In the end, I don't see a way to into a proper, well-referenced list. Pichpich (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete as PRODder. N.b., my PROD was inexplicably removed by Pichpich before xe nominated the article for AfD. — Theopolisme ( talk )  03:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Inexplicably? Check the page history and it's obvious. I didn't remove your PROD tag and I failed to see it because Surfsbruce removed it a few seconds after you put it up and while I was writing my AfD rationale. Pichpich (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While Pichpich was indeed the one to remove the PROD, there is a perfectly logical explanation: Twinkle's AfD tool rather annoyingly removes PROD tags that were placed on the article while you were writing your rationale. To make matters worse, unlike when it removes a CSD tag, there's no warning whatsoever. I've accidentally removed PROD tags myself because of this. CtP  (t • c) 04:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, so there is a good explanation after all! This AfD might be a bit of a waste of time (it's true that a prod would have worked) but at least I learned something. But why would the otherwise fantastically well-designed Twinkle do something so counterproductive? It's actually smart enough to see the prod tag and remove it, why not ask for confirmation? It makes no sense. Pichpich (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep C:--Surfsbruce (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)  blocked as sockpuppet of .  CtP  (t • c) 14:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason why? AfD isn't a vote; we're trying to build a consensus based on the strength of the arguments. CtP  (t • c) 03:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See: . If List of action film actors is keepable (list that only contains actors from my country-United States), then why not keep this list which contains famous action series from all over the world?--Surfsbruce (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * List of action film actors does contain non-Americans (I just went and picked a random one and he wasn't an American). Any perceived bias towards Americans in that article can be corrected by editing. Regardless, each article should be evaluated on its own merits. CtP  (t • c) 04:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Subjective list without clear parameters. As noted above, what makes an actor "well" known for their roles? Without good list boundaries, it's not a helpful list. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inclusion boundariies are vague, and the article is redundant to List of action film actors, but this title is so convoluted that it's not worth redirecting. CtP  (t • c) 03:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete All of this list's contents are original research and personal analysis. The more appropriate list already exists at List of action film actors, which shouldn't contain this personal analysis; the title explains why this serves as biased content, in my opinion, unless there are significant, reliable sources on it. TBrandley (what's up) 05:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete All original research, and it's not even complete. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 06:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per G5 (see Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000.) 72Dino (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - hopeless inclusion criterion; couldn't ever be complete; basically indiscriminate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.