Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali actresses


 * 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 The question of whether the ability of lists to annotated is worth the cost of list/category duplication is old one, thoroughly argued. Ultimately, the weight given to the benefits of annotation is a subjective one: some will find this feature more useful than others. On a question of subjective cost/benefit analysis, recourse to a simple tally may be helpful: this is a rough, but fair, way to estimate the community's judgment of the subjective merit of these list. Here, 9d/4k = 69%. There is previous precedent also supporting deletion here in List of British Actors.

That said, there is one special concern regarding these lists. For at least some of them (Iran, Vietnam, Bengal), the community should evaluate the question of systematic bias; for others (particularly Jewish American, or anything-American), systemic bias is less a concern. Since these list vary with respect to a key factor, and since the raw margin favoring deletion is barely sufficient to invoke admin discretion, I will invoke admin discretion to call this discussion No consensus/default keep. Especially given concerns of systemic bias in covering the developing world, these lists should not be considered en masse, but separately. Xoloz 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Bengali actresses (and other Lists of actors by nationality)
This is a follow-up to the AfD Discussion on List of British Actors (and three similar lists). The result of that discussion was delete. I am now nominating the remaining articles in Category:Lists of actors by nationality for deletion. Included in this nomination are: Until the AfD discussion on the List of British Actors, no consideration had been given to the encyclopedic value of these lists. All of these lists have categories. I believe that all of these articles are redundant as that is what categories are for. Furthermore, some lists provide an ostensible criteria for inclusion, but others do not. For consistency, these should all be deleted. Agent 86 23:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * List of actors from France
 * List of actors from Germany
 * List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)
 * List of Indian movie actresses
 * List of Iranian actors
 * List of Israeli actors
 * List of actors from Italy
 * List of actresses from Italy
 * List of Japanese actors
 * List of Japanese actresses
 * List of Jewish American actors in television
 * List of Swedish actors
 * List of Vietnamese actors
 * Delete as per nom Bwithh 23:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - duplicates category. Further, the criteria for inclusion is too vague. e.g. for Italy 'who reside in Italy or those who have appeared largely in Italy film productions.'. BlueValour 23:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have to follow precedents, but the discussion with the previous article proved how redundant these lists are when we already have a category for the topic. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep-Lists can provide information categories can't. They also provide an opportunity for expansion of the rather sucky coverage Wikipedia has on the developping world. Although possibly some of these should be merged with each other. (Example have one "List of Japanese actors" rather than two by gender)--T. Anthony 06:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment-there was a comment in the original AfD that suggested the lists with lots of redlinks be preserved because they can't be represented by categories. While shifting the redlinks over to WP:RA might work, it'll take a lot of work.  --ColourBurst 07:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've already moved the redlinks to Notice board for India-related topics/Requested articles. utcursch | talk 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Eusebeus 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Better than categories because they can be annotated. --JJay 10:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no way the lists can be complete. Categories are there to serve exactly this purpose. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - especially the excessive German lists. I don't buy the argument that lists are somehow more convenient than categories. I guess they are if you like scrolling a lot or making the test on your monitor super small. ...And Beyond! 20:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per And Beyond. CaliEd 02:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It makes me very sad to see that yet another useful list&mdash;the List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)&mdash;is going to be deleted, but I know from experience that there are too many willing executioners for me to efficiently oppose such a plan. Cui bono? I also believe the kind of bulk nomination practised here is illegitimate and inappropriate. See Agent 86's talk page for details. &lt;KF&gt; 22:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd prefer if the AfD discussion remains here or at this AfD's talk page, so I'd ask that any further comments not be put onto my talk page. I stand by my nomination, which was made entirely in good faith. The procedure I followed is expressly contemplated and provided for here. I fail to see how it's inappropriate for me to follow the very guidelines stated. Agent 86 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, I've copied my arguments to the talk page as requested. I don't want to make more enemies than necessary, so let me stress the fact that I've never doubted Agent 86's good faith. &lt;KF&gt; 00:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Follow Up - I never thought you were trying to make enemies. I doubt I'd be unable to sit down and enjoy a nice cup of tea with you. Agent 86 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and expand list with brief detail. --TheM62Manchester 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - if you have done before the close I might change my vote. However, this list has been around over 12 months and it's not been done so I doubt it will be. BlueValour 23:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This list has been around over 12 months. WHICH list? The Bengali actresses? &lt;KF&gt; 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete - if you delete these, there are about a hundred similar ones still out there. It's opening too big a can of worms. Let's renominate all of them together and then I may well vote "Delete". Mad Jack 01:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The similar pages have already been noted and are planned to follow the same route as these. So technically all are being nominated eventually. ...And Beyond! 04:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for example things like all the X-American lists (i.e. see Template:Americans) would have to go too, right? Mad Jack 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is plenty enough. You have to nominate in like groups so folks can take a view. Where lists have been used to provide added value then I would vote keep. The point about these is that a category would do a better job. You can't generalise. BlueValour 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree a category would do a much better job. So you're saying everything in Template:Americans should go, too, i.e. it'll soon be nominated as well? (by you?) Mad Jack 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * BlueValour is right. If all actor pages were nominated at once more people would complain about the bulk nomination. Voting keep at this point just slows down the process pointlessly. It won't bring back List of Canadian actors or List of British actors so I don't see why List of Iranian actors should survive but not them. For one thing, actor listing have become a "craze" that needs to die down. Everyone complains about "Red links! What about the red links?!" A User on another afd put "As WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed."" Just because an actor exists, doesn't mean they automatically deserve a wikipedia article. Furthermore, it's a sad fact that red links don't attract anyone to make articles. If someone is devoted enough to set time aside to make an article for an actor that isn't vanity, it's good evidence that article is worth being here. Can't use that self-pruning method on red links. ...And Beyond! 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed my vote to Delete, but I hope if these go then the X-American ones and others are next. Mad Jack 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep, categories don't provide information about gender and year of carrier. And after all: What about the red links? Are they also found in the categories? --84.176.178.112 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1st user contribution. BlueValour 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep all please some should be annotated but not erased Yuckfoo 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK are you about to annotate? If you encyclopaedic annotate I will vote Keep. BlueValour 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - You're asking for something that will never happen, Yuckfoo. Categories are maintainable. Once an actor article is created and checked for legitimacy, you simply add a note for a category. Lists can go on infinitely with anonymous users adding unmaintainable names on a daily basis. Nobody in the right mind will plan on spending their months preparing the red links in List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)..especially when its very likely that bundles of translations will be needed. ...And Beyond! 17:29, 15 August 2006 (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.