Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who gained or lost weight for a role


 * 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.  Singu larity  07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

List of actors who gained or lost weight for a role

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural - prod removed. I asked for the information in the article to be substantiated with references, for so many claims - well over 100 actors mentioned and only 4 real citations. There are even actors and films which are both redlinked without citations. One of the citations even states "unverified". On top of all this I believe this to be listcruft. And there are no defined criteria for joining this list - if Mark Hamill lost three pounds to become Luke Skywalker, would he qualify? The Rambling Man 17:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Oh yeah this some major list-cruft for you. I also have to agree, where do you draw the line of losing wait? Is it ten pounds plus? Definitely delete this one. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 19:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Losing or gaining weight is not a particularly notable subject alone, it is certainly not enough to suggest interest or function in a list of actors. Actors sometimes lose and gain weight, sometimes they grow beards, sometimes they change their hairstyles. That's just a part of being an actor. In very, very few cases is it in any way remarkable. So I fail to see the significance of a lits of actors who have gained and lost weight, especially when in most cases the loss or gain of weight is insignificant. Calgary 20:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Take this one down and work on it some more. It's easy to criticize this when it's not finished or even the least bit sourced.  I have no idea where the weight figures come from (unless the author did that kind of thing at a carnival).  As it is, however, even those of us who think it's a worthwhile concept will have a hard time voting to keep.  It's somewhat notable because it's one of the more unhealthy things that an actor or actress is required to do, sometimes... doing your own stunts is optional.  Get used to a lot of mean comments that accompany a vote to delete, try to eat something to feel better, but not too much.  Mandsford 20:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's almost completely unreferenced, four useful citations in total for over a hundred claims. The first way of saving it would be to remove all uncited claims.  Plus, add some criteria for being added to the list, I would argue that virtually all actors change physically for a given role.  The Rambling Man 20:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete actors routinely gain and lose weight for roles. This is hardly a notable trait. Resolute 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's routine; indeed, I think actors are under more pressure than those of us not on film to maintain their weight. It would depend on the amount of weight gain or weight loss, I would think.  If someone is required to add or shed 30 pounds in order to qualify for a particular role, it would be a makeup job that's difficult to remove.  Mandsford 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether it's routine or not, the article simply doesn't meet the required policies of verifiable assertion of notability with reliable sources. It's that simple.  The Rambling Man 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment If an actor truly makes a significant effort to change weight for a role then why not add that information into article for the actor him/her-self? This is 100% listcruft.  The Rambling Man 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy and delete, with no prejudice towards recreation if author can find sources discussing the notability of actors gaining or losing weight for roles. I think I've read newspaper articles on this subject, and a link to such an article can be found, I'd be willing to reconsider my !vote, as that would establish that the list isn't an arbitrary collection of data.  Incidentally, the absence of sources for most of the data isn't a reason for deletion — it's a reason for improvement.  Lack of sources is a deletion criterion only if it's clear that sources couldn't be added.  The existence of four sources on the subject shows that more could be found. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per being a list of loosely associated topics and a list of trivia Corpx 04:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial intersection of data and unreferenced original research. Axem Titanium 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As mentioned above a list of weight gains for movie roles is hardly encyclopedia, and there are only eight references to account for the entire list. And to emphasise Calgary's comments from above, with a list like this we may as well be listing actors who got a haircut for a role. • 97198  talk  07:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless.--Bedivere 21:14, 22 August 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.