Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australians in film and television


 * 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 Gnangarra 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Australians in film and television


Badly named, undefined, poorly maintained, and incomplete list that presumably should include any Australian who has something to do with film or tv. Categories do this much better, delete --Peta 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think this is much better done with categories. - Richardcavell 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and further annotate list Categories and lists can live in harmony. Undefined? Maybe it is a List of Australians in film and television. Its just my guess. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep lists can give further information than categories; this one gives job types, which can be useful for someone trying to look up a name they don't quite remember. The list should include people with Wikipedia articles or who could have them.Noroton 04:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above Balloonman 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as an overly broad, vague, indiscriminate list. A list of Australians "involved" in television or film in some capacity could number in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Even restricting the list to those notable enough for Wikipedia articles could take it into the thousands or even tens of thousands. Otto4711 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs clean-up, not deletion. Some clarification on the topic of the list, and perhaps a corresponding rename would also be useful.  It's clear that it's not intended to include everyone who was an extra in Crocodile Dundee.  But sometimes we have to spell these things out. --JayHenry 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument. Even assuming that this list is useful, all sorts of things are useful but still unencyclopedic. Otto4711 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Canley 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All the problems in the nomination can be easily addressed without deletion. That said, perhaps it should be moved to List of Australian actors and other sublists (television presenters, etc.) as most of the list members appear to be of that occupation. --Canley 05:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above Ulysses Zagreb 09:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:LIST - information and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 10:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:LIST is not a Get Out of Jail Free card for lists. If a list is otherwise unacceptable, conformity with WP:LIST does not save it. Otto4711 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then keep per JRG below. - Peregrine Fisher 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep - let's stop these random deletions just because they could be in a category. This has gone overboard. The list needs clean-up not deletion, and an AfD is not the right procedure to follow. JRG 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not random deletions - they are focused on cleaning up Lists of Australians to have a set of useful, reliable, maintainable and maintained lists. See talk:Lists of Australians for more info. --Scott Davis Talk 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Scott Davis asserting an agreement to reorganise lists. If so, then the information is really being merged and redirects must be left to comply with the WP:GFDL.  SmokeyJoe 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed this comment sooner - sorry. The process so far has been to delete the completely useless article that was called "List of Australians" as most of us weren't on it, create a new article Lists of Australians with as many lists of people as we could find, then start to sift through which ones are valuable to the project. A number were already accurate, complete and maintained, so are not treated further here. Some have been improved, either through initiative, discussion, or AFD (yes it does happen that articles are improved and kept after nomination). Some have been nominated for deletion and been deleted. These have been lists with overly broad definitions that to become "complete" would have thousands of entries, many not notable, or were lists of "notable people" without a reliable source for the list. These are better served by categories that are magically kept up to date as new articles are written. Redirects have been left in place for any lists that have been merged or renamed. See Talk:Lists of Australians to see how we're going and if you'd like to help. The underlying purpose is to remove lists that reflect poorly on the project as a whole or the Australian part of it, and avoid lists that attract vanity or attack entries. --Scott Davis Talk 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder why it is that when people want to keep an article because "it needs cleanup" there are almost never 1) suggestions on how the article can be cleaned up, 2) actual attempts to clean up the article during the AFD, and 3) commitments on the part of the cleanup advocates to actually clean up the article. Otto4711 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your statement is an inaccurate generalisation. Please see such cases as Articles for deletion/What is black and white and red all over?, Articles for deletion/Extreme Pizza, Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines, which show that in many cases actual improvements are made.  In response to your points, however:
 * Not true. Suggestions are often given on how to cleanup.  In this case, I can suggest converting this into a table to provide dates of birth/death, place of birth, and a "notes" column listing awards, major roles, etc.
 * Please see the 3 examples above. Moreover, when it seems likely that an article may be deleted, no one has particular incentive to even try to fix it.  If the issue was raised in an environment other than "Du hast fünf Tage diesen Artikel zu verbessern oder es wirt getötet.  Verstehst du?  Arbeit, Arbeit, Arbeit!", that might be more conducive to improvement.
 * Wikipedia is a community effort, is it not? Articles tagged with cleanup will undoubtedly catch someone's attention. -- Black Falcon 08:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Peta, Otto4711 and WP:LIST. Can never be complete in the sense used above by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and the lead sentence, so is not suitable for information, navigation or development. --Scott Davis Talk 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It can be a category, though Al-Bargit 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete an unmanageable, unmaintained list, with no clear criteria for listing, and as a result could be thousands of people. The articles listed are far better maintained as categories.  Rest assured that all those above calling for keeping on the basis of it being cleaned up will never do any of that cleaning up!  --Steve (Slf67)talk 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Needs to be replaced by List of cast members of Home and Away and similar lists which have clear inclusion criteria. Once there is more than one list, recreate as list of lists. I was on the news once - does that mean I should be on List of Australians in film and television (where does it say I shouldn't be?) Garrie 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Scott.--cj | talk 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Usedup 05:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per JRG. Mathmo Talk 09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are several categories that already covers this in different ways. The current definition (Australians who have been involved in film and television) makes the article impossible, it will just grow into an unmanageable pile of TV presenters, film actors, special effects guys, directors and more. Noone has any use for that. Pax:Vobiscum 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per ScottDavis, Pax, Slf67 and others. Orderinchaos78 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons given by User:GarrieIrons, Otto4711 and others. I can't imagine this article ever being able to satisfy WP:LIST, even after cleanup, because it seems essentially unbounded. I'm all for categories, though. Subcategories if you want to preserve people's jobs and such. If someone comes up with a new reason to keep it that hasn't been discussed before my vote here, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and see if I'll change my vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It just needs cleaning up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.23.37.97 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2007
 * Keep. I have a dream, that one day ... lists and categories can exist side-by-side.  I have a dream, that one day ... people will stop insisting on completeness when Wikipedia itself is an eternally incomplete project.  I have a dream, that one day ... those who prefer using categories just do so and leave an alternate option available to others.  -- Black Falcon 08:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was paid to be an extra in a movie once - does that mean I should be in this list? If these sorts of open ended lists of names have only blue links, they are already like a category. If they have red links, either an article should be written (so they appear in the category), the link added to WikiProject Australia/To-do, or removed if it is just a vanity entry. It is also possible to create a new list with tighter membership criteria, but these open lists are not actually a useful starting point for that, either. --Scott Davis Talk 13:08, 13 March 2007 (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.