Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors who died in their 20s


 * 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. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actors who died in their 20s

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This should be a category, if anything. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN play it cool.  21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 
 * Comment: I've been trying to get across below that the category, which was created by the same user at virtually the same time, is in WP:CfD right now. Even if, on the long shot it was kept, there is no information here that is not already in the category. Categorize should not be a choice right now. Redfarmer (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-encyclopedic cross categorization. Probably shouldn't even be a category. All these actors had in common was they died in their 20s, which is not inherently notable. Redfarmer (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established by coverage in reliable sources. Category alone is --Rtphokie (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)not sufficient; article allows sources.  Meanest Streets (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The one source is a border copyvio of a Yahoo news article that was produced in memoriam of Heath Ledger reminding readers of other actors who died in their 20s. Such articles pop up all the time after events like this. They don't establish notability. Redfarmer (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sounds like a case of WP:LIST.  In this case, the category is a bit more appropriate. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: the category is in WP:CfD right now. They have precedent against such categories. Redfarmer (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Mixed feelings about this one. There actually is a category called "Actors Who Died In their 20s"; yet both list and category sound like something you'd find on Jeopardy or Pyramid.  On the other hand, I guess this probably started as something like "People who died young" before the more technical minded began asking for a definition of young.  Thus, we have a square hole for persons who died on or after their 20th birthday, but no later than one day before their 30th birthday. Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the comment above, the category, which was created by the same editor, is in WP:CfD and it's got a consensus of delete right now due to WP:OCAT. That's not necessarily a reason to delete the article because I think they should be considered seperately but it does give you something to think about. Redfarmer (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the fact that apparently the decision is being made that it's not suitable for a category, so I guess it has to be kept as an article. I personally think it should be the other way around, but what do I know. 23skidoo (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel this should be kept just because the category is being deleted? As I said above, they should be considered totally separately; I only brought up the issue of deletion of the category to point out that converting to category or pointing to the existence of the category would not be a valid argument right now. This article is borderline copyvio and a violation of WP:NOT for being a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. WP:LOSE. Redfarmer (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete list of loosely related people, only that they died young doesn't deserve a category or a list. We already have List of people who died before the age of 30, which is more than enough. Secret account 04:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Convert to category, and yes, similar categories exist. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, similar categories exist, but WP:CfD is working to stamp them out. They have a precedent of deleting such categories and are considering salting this one since it's been recreated several times. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Redfarmer (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't convert to a category. Infact, the category is being CFD'd as I type. Lugnuts (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep– This list is particularly useful to anyone researching celebrity culture and early fame. The category of the same name will probably be deleted, and without this list (which, sad to say could be easily expanded quite a bit), this information will be lost. J. Van Meter (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Usefulness is completely irrelevant here. The issue is whether this information is appropriate for a list form or not. So far, all arguements I've heard for the list are in the form of WP:USEFUL or WP:LOSE. These are both irrelevant. Redfarmer (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is inappropriate for a category, as has been decided 3 times before (and a fourth time as we speak, most likely). If this information is worthwhile keeping, then it needs to be kept in a list form, not a category. --Lquilter (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - If anything, this should be a category. If it's kept as an entry instead, the name should be changed to reflect that it's apparently a list of U.S. actors, and apparently movie/TV actors, not stage actors. In other words, it's just a weird little list. --Markzero (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, on further review this entry seems to have been simply a regurgitation of a list of ten dead Hollywood actors, as cited in one of the sources. Heath Ledger wasn't even listed until I just added him now. I really don't see how this is not tailor-made for a category, as each actors' entries should have sufficient details about their deaths already. So convert it or just kill it. --Markzero (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, I'm getting horse from repeating this: it already is a category and it's in CfD with a current consensus of delete due to WP:OCAT. Please, consider the list in its own right at this point. It's probably not going to be a category for much longer. Redfarmer (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak Keep and expand if kept.  this is at the moment a trivial list of 10 actors, derived from a single pair of articles, published in response to the death of Heath ledger. should be done right or not at all. DGG (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete We really don't need this.  Thin boy  00  @205, i.e. 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep I find this category quite informative, as I recall it existed once but had been deleted. It's resotration is a good thing.  Is it, perhaps, some sort of stigma regarding death that makes you all feel this category is not needed?  I think it's quite informative.  And Thinboy00, why don't "we" need this?? 24.149.185.189 (talk)
 * It is useful is not a valid argument for inclusion. Redfarmer (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Pointless list.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that the category is about to be deleted. I don't support list articles of this nature. I feel categories are more appropriate. Obviously, however, Wikipedia is effectively banning such categories, so therefore you have to have one or the other. 23skidoo (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to have? User:Dorftrottel 02:27, January 30, 2008
 * convert to category per nom. RogueNinja talk  18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Decade of age upon death is a bit arbitrary for an article don't you think? Besides, at least at once time, it was possible to directly SQL query IMDB for information like this.  (Something like, "SELECT * FROM actors WHERE dateOfDeath - dateOfBirth < 30 && dateOfDeath - dateOfBirth >= 20")...databases are much nicer for this type of information than are wikis. -Verdatum (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. Completely arbitrary. Fails WP:NOT.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - what's next? Actors who died in their 30s, Farmers who died in their 20s, Clerks who died in ther 40s - No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If this is closed as no consensus, I'm gonna re-nominate it and demonstrate that this fails vital Wikipedia policies.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - At first, I was going to suggest (as a replacement) an ordered list of celebrities, by age at death; which would eliminate one arbitrary point (the 20's as an age limit). But, even then, it fails WP:NOT.  I think the only way this article remains unarbitrary is as an ordered list of all ages at death (not just actors); and, I'm not about to suggest that as an article.  If someone wants to set up Wikideathia to keep track of that, more power to them.  Until then, WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping; and, the premise that the deletion of the category somehow should give this article a free pass is an equally unsound argumant. Neier (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Categorify or delete. User:Dorftrottel 13:57, January 29, 2008
 * Categorify and delete.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It already WAS a category as has been pointed out above and was deleted in WP:CfD. Categorify should not be an option right now, period, as to categorify would be to recreate deleted material. Redfarmer (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and replace with a category. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You can't just say "speedy delete" without specifying which criteria in WP:CSD it falls under. As far as I can tell, it does not fall under any of the current criteria. -Verdatum (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Brings together related topics and is useful for navigating the subject, which is a valid argument per WP:USEFUL:"There are some times when 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information 'useful'. Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'"
 * It helps to actually read policies, guidelines and essays before invoking them. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I seriously doubt this policy applies in this case. This "article" is nothing that can't be substituted by a category. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per WP:CLS, categories and lists aren't in competition. "You can replace this with a category" is not a valid argument for deletion. Torc2 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply This "article" is nothing more than a pseudo-category. It should be deleted for that alone. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know what I just said or what in WP:CLS was unclear about the matter. "Better as a category" is a non-argument. Torc2 (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply You pointing to generic wiki policy aside, do you have any actual reason as to why this "article" that consists of nothing more than a few links to dead actors, should be kept? &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I never said to keep the article. I was just pointing out the flaws in using that argument to delete the article.  If we're going to delete it, let's delete it for legitimate reasons.  "Better as a category" is not a legitimate reason. Torc2 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Yeah yeah, whatever. There's nothing flawed in deleting an article that serves no purpose and could be substituted by a category. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. In this line numerous articles can be created like Actors who died in their 30s, Actors who died in their 40s, Actors who died in their 50s, Actors who died in their 60s, Swimmers who died in their 30s, Footballers who died in their 30s etc etc. Unencyclopedic and pointless. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This information can already be found on the page List_of_famous_people_who_died_young, also known by other names such as List of people who died before the age of 30, mentioned by Secret. I believe this page is redundant. MrMelonhead (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete And perhaps make a Cat Hereitisthen (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is very interesting and timely. Searches for just this thing were all over the internet after Heath Ledger died.  It is worthy of wikipedia.  Georgiamonet (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether you think the article is useful or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - i am really astounded by the number of people who say "categorify" or similar after Redfarmer and others have pointed out that that is not an option because CFD has deleted the category. Are they not reading? Do they think this is a vote? What on earth is going on here? --Lquilter (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - what's going on? A lack of consensus, that's whats going.  Those who are recomending categorization probably missed the CFDdiscussion and would have recommended keeping that category.  Seems like that discussion should be reopened based on the discussion here.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a no consensus here but rather a lot of people arguing WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:LOSE. The only editor who has voted keep and has had a well thought out reason is Phil Bridger (mind you, a lot of the deletes and categorifys have been just as bad). And no, the CfD discussion should not be reopened. They've had that discussion three times before and reached the same conclusion each time. I posted a link here when it first started but, like Lquilter said, it's like people are voting entirely based on the nom and not reading the rest of the discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * huh? Hang on, you're the one who said you were going hoarse on this very page from all the deleters talking of making it a category (?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did. I repeated it so many times above the only reason I can see someone would continue to say categorize is they haven't read the entire discussion. I personally think the article should be deleted. Doesn't mean I'm 100% absolutely right but there have been so many absolutely horrid arguments for keep in this discussion I don't feel they should even be considered. There have been some equally bad votes for delete but there have also been some good reasons and, if we are going solely by good logical responses (as I understand AfD is supposed to) then we should not look at arguments not based on policy and see what the consensus is by that. Redfarmer (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - oh, and delete, by the way, because having read the CFD discussion and the AFD discussion, i have yet to see a solid argument for keeping this particular cross-section of information, and i can't construct one for myself. It's trivia. If people are interested in the topic of "people dying young" then they can write an article about the sociological phenomena or contribute to articles on suicide or so on, but this is trivia, and ghoulish trivia at that. delete, delete, delete. --Lquilter (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not anti-trivia. It's just anti-trivia section Torc2 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this shows the article definition was considered notable in its own right buy a major newspaper. Yes, it could be considered some sort of subset in a venn-diagram sort of way of List_of_famous_people_who_died_young. Actually I wouldn't have a problem with it being merged there either.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a word for word rerun of the same article the user used to create this page to begin with. That does not establish notability but rather that a newspaper wanted to capitalize on sentiment surrounding Heath Ledger's death. Redfarmer (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (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.