Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who have played animated characters


 * 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   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

List of actors who have played animated characters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N and a pointless trivia list. Per original prod by User:RadioFan, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Prod removed by article creator without reason. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks to me as if this list is seeking to break down voice actors by character rather than by name.  It may not be redundant to List of voice actors, but the information contained on it might be better preserved under the character names than as a large list. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irretrievably fails WP:NOTDIR, probably runs afoul of WP:N, and abrades WP:BIO. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I just don't see any relevance or why anyone would care... it's almost like this is someone's "Garage band" but it's their "wikipedia project" ... ???? give me some notability assertion, use, or something.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've changed my position based on the discussion. WP:DISCRIMINATE (not "indiscriminate") does indeed apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A legitimate list. If you want to know this information, this is a good list to see, it linking to the movies and actors and series, all of which have wikipedia articles.   D r e a m Focus  23:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment — "I like it" is not a valid basis for keeping a noncompliant article. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response It don't like nor dislike it, not caring about the subject matter at all. But it is a perfectly reasonable list to have in an encyclopedia.  You could also have a list for actors who became elected officials, or Harvard graduates that became president of the United States of America.   D r e a m Focus  22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be precise, that's WP:USEFUL, not WP:LIKE. And they are arguments to avoid, not arguments that are not valid.
 * Om the contrary, Usefulness is a relevant criterion for navigational devices such as lists. DGG (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:ATA: "Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is interesting, and the arguments for "interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay."
 * If we're keeping track, I see here in this thing I just wrote that when it comes to looking at the content of arguments, a WP:USEFUL is worth 1.347 LIKEs/WP:IDLs and a wopping 1.782 WP:ITSCRUFTs, if only .304 DITTOs, and .287 WP:VAGUEWAVEs. Don't bite the noobs. Most of the folks here are permanoobs. At least the newcomers still have a chance of turning into real editors some day. Anarchangel (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Categorize all actors into Category:Voice actors and Delete per nominator. Matthewedwards : Chat  01:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then a new category... because there are more voice actors who have never been themselves in front of a camera, and more actors who have never provided voices for animation. This list or new category shows where the two fields meet. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Acceptable list--I dod not see what the list is noncompliant with--this is not indiscriminate since it refers only to  notable fictions. If it referred to all such animated characters even in work not notable enough for Wikipedia, then, and only then, would it be indiscriminate.    Brings together Wikipedia  content for the  sake of navigation (One person's trivia is another's important content) . Browsing is one of the key functions of any encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another inaccurate interpretation of the IINFO guideline. The problem is not that this list does not have discriminate inclusion criteria; the problem is that Wikipedia is not to indiscriminately include any and all lists of information.  (In other words, IINFO does not say "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information"; it says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".)  Powers T 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that this is where the IINFO references began. An uncategorical assertion that DGG's statement is incorrect, according to a specific rule, followed by vague assertions as to the meaning of a sentence in IINFO. There are many suppositions in the above two sentences regarding the use of WP rules and their role in maintaining the information on WP, and a great danger of misrepresenting them, as they are not defined. However, the most visible here is the belief that the choice of the word order of the sentence "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" was deliberate and in itself definitive of something. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not se the problem: "an indiscriminate collection of information" is a collection made without discriminaitng. This one does discriminate and includes only the notableDGG (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I really that unclear? The "collection" in that quotation is not the list, it's Wikipedia.  The guideline says that Wikipedia must discriminate when it comes to deciding what information to include.  Certainly the list must not be indiscriminate, either, but we can all agree that's not the issue here.  The issue here is that Wikipedia must be more discriminating.  Powers T 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that Wikipedia discriminates does not say anything about how Wikipedia should discriminate, and does not give any reason whatsoever why the criteria you are using to discriminate against this list are any better than the criteria DGG and others are using to argue for this list's inclusion. See also User:Uncle G/On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate. DHowell (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It's essentially trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia should not include just any old list of information, even if it has well-defined inclusion criteria. Powers T 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is not trivia nor an indiscriminate collection of information, as it serves as a navigation aid that serves to improve the project... one that meets the criteria of WP:STAND as it is based on reliable sources. Should the nom wish the numerous references be brought over from the 12 listed articles, fine... but that is a matter for cleanup and not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic itself is not notable. If people want to read cast lists of movies based on animation properties, the appropriate place to do that is at the seperate articles. This is akin to making a list called "List of actors who have played judges". WesleyDodds (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If your List of actors who have played judges could be sourced just the folks in this list can be, and met the guidelines of WP:STAND, it would be welcome. Your solution of repeating the information in the 12 seperate articles would have readers not know that these 12 had a common link, and does not improve the project. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can source a list like this, but it doesn't mean it should exist. As I stated, these cast lists belong in the film articles. This is just poor organization. You don't need a list article on this topic, because the relationship between these topics is trival. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With a set criteria for inclusion, the list is not trivial. If I wanted to find out which actors have played animated characters, are you then suggesting I scour their articles to see if perhaps they have done so? Or that I scour the various film articles to see? Sorry, but that's not very efficient. As a simple and effective navigation aid, and one that meets WP:STAND, the article improves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to wanted to find out which actors have played animated characters, the questions is why? Are you looking for actors who played particular actors? Or are you just curious about actors in general who played animated characters? Because for the former, you'd go to specific character or film article. For the latter, well, there's no reason such a list to accomodate this should necessarily exist in the first place, because it's just a broad topic. As I stated before, it's like expecting to find a list of actors who played judges. It doesn't illuminate anything for the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A discriminate list of actors who have played animated characters quite nicely illuminates its content, just as would your hypothesized list of actors who have played judges. Why does anybody use Wikipedia? Curiosity? Research? Fun? Who cares and why does it even matter to this discusion? I am not going to even attempt to get into the heads and reasonings of hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia users. Their reasons are their own. However, making use of Wikipedia easier for readers greatly improves the project. And as stated numerous times above, the discriminate list meets WP:STAND. A more cogent question is why would anyone want to make Wikipedia more difficult to use? Why would anyone demand to know why anyone reads these pages? Anyone wishing to know what actors may have played animated characters would type in that search and discover just who has done so. I am not going to sit in judgement and decide that readers must search though hundreds of other articles to find the information contained in this one guideline supported list. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete A very clear failure of WP:NOT in that the list is indiscriminate information and a repository of loosely associated topics. --Farix (Talk) 16:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is discriminate, and useful for navigation. Maybe could use a better name. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That the list is discriminate is irrelevant; see my note above about IINFO. Powers T 15:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep pointing to the disputed WP:IINFO. In reading it, it is easy to see that the list is not a plot-only description, the list is not a lyric database, the list it is not an excessively long list of statistics, the list is not a news report. So even were it not disputed, WP:IINFO does not apply. However the undisputed WP:STAND does apply and the list meets inclusion criteria. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not this again. The list of examples at IINFO is not exhaustive.  Powers T 23:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first appearance of the argument that relies on the assumption that 'If it could fall under WP:IINFO, therefore it does'. The points for why it doesn't are again, not addressed. It is a valid point to say that the article fits none of the examples given in IINFO, just as it is to say that the list does not include all of the possible infractions of IINFO. To say that IINFO does not pertain to this article because there is no evidence in IINFO that it does might be considered a negative proof. But to say that if X could be true, then it is, is such a primitive logical fallacy that it isn't even listed anywhere that I know of. At the risk of giving it undue credit, it is similar to Begging the question and Circular reasoning in that it relies for its proof on the existence of its assertions, rather than on their logical consequences. This is what I was responding to when I first addressed the inadequacies of IINFO, below. I had not seen Powers' suppositions above, which have now been counterargued. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTDIR Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic ". The actors in this list "are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". As such, the list passes WP:NOTDIR. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, many movies start out life in other media. This include fairytales, books, plays, comic books, games (Red Queen), video games, older movies and animated series. What these things have in common is that they spring from the human imagination. A list of movies that started out as animated series wouldn't bother me much, although I would prefer a category, but this goes too far. I say delete as a violation of WP:Synthesis. Abductive (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:STAND. WP:DIR fails under point 1. WP:IINFO contains four key WP rules: A diversion of enthusiastic plot writers to more encyclopaedic content at the cost of allowing deletionists free rein to query anything with a plot summary in it, WP:COPYVIO (no argument there, other than why a reiteration is required), an IDL about any statistics other than for presidential elections, and WP:RECENTISM, which is an essay. No wonder it is disputed. Can you tell us, LtPowers, in your own words of course, I am not requiring you to argue in terms of my framing of my argument, what it is in or about WP:IINFO that you find relevant to this article? Abductive: a long road, but the journey was mostly in a carriage marked WP:IDL. That the destination turned out to be WP:SYNTH I find inexplicable. Care to elaborate? Anarchangel (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I was getting at by saying WP:Synthesis is that the outside world does not make such lists or distinctions. Actors are categorized in a lot of different ways, such as the Rat Pack. What I look for is reliable sources that think a category is interesting. For example, if somebody made a list of actors who started out as stand-up comedians, I would say that since various critics have noted that this is a path to stardom, such a list would be ok. Abductive (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, Anarchangel, the list of examples at WP:IINFO is not exhaustive. The examples are merely that -- examples.  Specifically, the guideline says that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  When someone invokes IINFO, what they're saying is that "even though this list may be accurate, it is still not encyclopedic information, because it's too specific or too trivial."

Powers T 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You reopened the AfD, complaining about how you didn't get to comment, for that? Because the article could fall under WP:IINFO, it does? Does backing up your assertions with facts mean nothing to you? You can go on forever with that horse hockey; I give a reason why it doesn't fall under IINFO, and you say, but it could.
 * Here's a reason: my previous question, which you haven't answered yet:
 * What is it "in or about WP:IINFO that you find relevant to this article?" Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 'When someone invokes IINFO, what they're saying is that "even though this list may be accurate, it is still not encyclopedic information, because it's too specific or too trivial."' Are they, indeed? I would say that would be an example of someone 'invoking' IINFO incorrectly. The words specific and trivial are nowhere to be found in that entire page, as connected to any rule. There's "If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk". Your solicitous misreading of WP rules to me is unwarranted, especially when, at your insistence, this entire AfD had to be restarted, then stopped again after 10 hours, and restarted again, after it had been closed 'no consensus', to bring these pearls of wisdom to me.
 * Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you meant you yourself find the article too trivial and too specific, although you said that of a third person, "they", and neither trivial nor specific are words used in IINFO. It isn't too specific, as the article shows. If it were, for example, the article would be too short. It isn't too trivial; if it were, for example, there would be a significant number of data that didn't have their own articles. Or weren't cultural events that people across the world paid out a total of millions of Euros to go see. Or weren't people about whom more words will be written in a lifetime than even real contributors to WP enter into mainspace in their whole career. Anarchangel (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I insisted upon nothing. I suggested to King of Hearts that his closure was improper (either incorrect or premature) because it accepted your argument at face value, even though it contained a misleading inaccuracy (the implication that IINFO didn't apply) and a direct question to me that I did not have a chance to answer.  By directing that question to me, you implied that your reasoning was contingent upon not getting a good answer to that question.  The action of re-opening the AfD was King of Hearts' decision alone; I would have been fine if he had taken any one of a number of other routes, although I of course may have decided to open a DRV in response.  To say that I insisted upon the re-opening is unwarranted, misleading, and quite frankly, tiring.
 * Second of all, regarding IINFO: Your original statement went through the four examples and explained how none of them apply here. From that, I inferred that you were suggesting that IINFO as a whole does not apply to this case.  My reply was meant to refute that suggestion.  If you were not suggesting that, then I apologize.  To answer your question more clearly, the part of IINFO that applies is its admonition to avoid indiscriminately including information in the encyclopedia.  An infinite number of intersection lists such as this one could be created, but IINFO requires that we be discriminating when it comes to which of those lists we should include.  WP:SALAT backs this up; two of its admonitions apply here: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value", and "some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge".
 * -- Powers T 20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, KoH. In your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who have played animated characters, you said Anarchangel gave "excellent reasoning". I object to this, as his/her "keep" recommendation contains errors, as well as a question directed specifically to me, but I did not have a chance to respond before you closed the discussion. I could have addressed his/her error and question had I the chance, and I believe that that might have affected your evaluation of his/her argument. Powers T 13:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I contend that my use of the word 'insisted' was accurate; I don't want to get into that, it would be very messy. I had pointed out the problems with IINFO as a whole, concluding "No wonder it is disputed".
 * My reasoning stands alone and is not dependent on answers; however, I still pursue consensus, although I wonder whether I shall ever see consensus created where it did not already exist. So my request served two purposes: one, to further the discussion, and two, to show that you had not given concrete examples of how IINFO forbade the article. Pursuant to the first, to seek to overturn the decision of the AfD as a whole because of wanting to respond to your interpretation of my argument is sacrificing a large, concrete consensus (albeit in the form of an assessment that there is no consensus, and none is forthcoming) for the sake of a hypothetical pursuit of a potential, and considerably smaller consensus.
 * The only reason to assert that IINFO does not apply to this article would be that it can not be extrapolated from WP:DELETION, and in particular, you have given no examples of how IINFO applies to this article; when pressed, you cited 'too specific or too trivial', which turned out to be from a completely different rule, SALAT. That's an 'error', where are mine? Are you at least willing to concede your examples are not in IINFO? You insist on repeating the assertions of 'too specific' and 'too trivial', despite the fact that I have already answered them; the proper form at that time is to either concede or counterargue, not bring them up again. Here is what I said earlier on the subject: "It isn't too specific, as the article shows. If it were, for example, the article would be too short. It isn't too trivial; if it were, for example, there would be a significant number of data that didn't have their own articles. Or weren't cultural events that people across the world paid out a total of millions of Euros to go see. Or weren't people about whom more words will be written in a lifetime than even real contributors to WP enter into mainspace in their whole career."  Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to overwhelm me with arguments, you're succeeding. Am I to respond point-by-point, or should I attempt to glean a thesis statement from your paragraphs and respond to that?  Powers T 13:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: Reopened per User talk:King of Hearts. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate and pointless list. J I P  | Talk 09:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not indiscriminate, since it list specific information. And any article out there can be considered pointless to someone, that doesn't mean others won't find it useful.   D r e a m Focus  16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a defining feature - Wikipedia is not a directory. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has list, and this one meets the criteria just fine. A list and a directory are not the same thing.  D r e a m Focus  16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. At first I thought it was a list of actors who did voice acting, but this is even worse. --Conti|✉ 14:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You say delete for what reason? Not liking something is not a reason to delete something.    D r e a m Focus  16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete . Neutral.(per Banjeboi, DHowell) — Rankiri (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Category:Live-action films based on cartoons and List of live-action films based on cartoons and comics already contain dozens of titles and are far from being complete. Aside from missing US and European movie entries (e.g. G.I. Joe (film)), there are also innumerable Japanese live-action adaptations of popular anime/manga series. The inclusion criterion covers hundreds if not thousands of loosely associated actors, which makes the list virtually unmaintainable and practically useless. I think this falls under WP:NOTDIR, subsections 1 and 6. — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how thousands of actors could be included in that. How many non-animated films are based on cartoon or video game characters?  It isn't a limitless list.  Nor is it unmaintainable.  If anything is missing, then add it.   D r e a m Focus  16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the cast listings for the first 4 of the 34 entires in Category:Live-action films based on cartoons:
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0131704/fullcredits#cast
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402022/fullcredits#cast
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0952640/fullcredits#cast
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1231580/fullcredits#cast
 * Admittedly, not all of these actors are notable but many of them are. And, as I said earlier, the list is far from being complete and will only contain a much greater number of entries with each year. — Rankiri (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoopi Goldberg as Judge Cameo, and other cameo appearances don't count. She didn't play an animated character, she was just in a movie with them.  Unless they were a notable character from the cartoon itself, then they wouldn't be listed.  ''' D r e a m Focus  20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * List of live-action films based on cartoons and comics, 114 entries, incomplete. Movies Based Upon Anime/Manga, 60 titles, incomplete. From 351,000 Google results for "live-action remake of * animated: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. These results show that, from a practical point of view, the list can be seen as virtually unlimited and therefore unmaintainable. It also appears that the list was created just for the sake of having such a list, as I don't see how it can be of interest to anyone but an extremely limited number of people. Determining membership involves original research, as—according to your own Woopi Goldberg example—I have no documented way of knowing whether someone's role in a movie adaptation of some cartoon series can be counted or not. Sorry, but it seems like a clear-cut violation of WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. — Rankiri (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No article requires anyone to prove someone is a main character or not, it just common sense to those who have watched it, and doesn't violate the no original research rule. List of actors who have played notable animated characters would probably be a better name.  The possibility of how long the list can grow is not a valid reason to delete something.  A very small number of people might be interested in a list of kings from some ancient  civilization, but that doesn't disqualify it.  Wikipedia is not a popularity contest.  We don't delete articles that get low hits, or low ratings.  This is not a directory, since we aren't listing every Chinese restaurant in New York city, or every page from a phone book.  This list meets all Wikipedia standards for a list.   D r e a m Focus  23:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet the question remains: What evidence is there that this combination of inclusion criteria is notable? Powers T 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Each and every piece of data in it is the subject of an article, and was considered notable for that purpose. Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If I create a List of companies that were created between July 1974 and January 1976 and fill it with individually notable company names, will they somehow make my list in any way more notable? Notability of the entries is not relevant to notability of the list. — Rankiri (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have made rhetorical what is in fact a valid question. With those companies as a subject, the article would be notable. However, the focus of your hypothetical list is too small; there wouldn't be enough companies. I would suggest Corporations established in the 20th Century Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between Corporations established in the 20th Century and, say, List of companies that were created between July 1904 and January 1976 is that one time period is historically significant and the other one is entirely indiscriminate—as in chosen at random or without careful judgement. There is no notability for this list. It's in no way different from List of actors who have played pirates, List of actors who have played elderly gentlemen, List of actors who have played historic characters or any other similarly nonencyclopedic lists created on a whim. — Rankiri (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:SALAT: The potential for creating lists is infinite... To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists. Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories... Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list). Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in WP:WWIN, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge... Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category.
 * The official policies clearly state that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory of everything that exists or has existed. A list like this should give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant, otherwise it clearly falls into under the mentioned policies. You also ignore the fact that the inclusion criteria for the list covers more than a hundred of titles with hundreds and hundreds of actors. — Rankiri (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Proof by assertion. And ad nauseum, to boot. You and Powers have correctly copied IINFO, multiple times, but you still haven't shown how it pertains to the article. IINFO is vague, perhaps deliberately so, but either way, it requires a user to point to correlations between the article and the guideline. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I've fully explained my position on this. Please reread my earlier comments. — Rankiri (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Popeye contains citations to prove it existed. 2. Robin Williams says he played Popeye in, and follow this carefully, Popeye (film). 3. Likewise, if you can still keep up, the film article says Williams played this character. And to list Williams as playing Popeye in Popeye is WP:SYNTH? It isn't exactly a brainteaser to come to this conclusion, is it? Where is the overreaching Original Research required to come up with Robin Williams (actor who played Popeye) = Actor who played an animated character? Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - A clearly pointless list, imo. Barras (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can not delete something simply because you do not like it. Does it violate any rules?   D r e a m Focus  16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The violated rule is WP:SYNTHESIS. The universe can be divided up into an infinity of infinities. We don't create lists such as List of actors who have portrayed hippies or List of actors who have played politicans because the journalists, critics, scholars and other who create the secondary sources we rely on don't make this distinction. Abductive (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way are the notable, cited facts somehow inherently un-notable, or requiring proof of notability, in combination? You have reached a conclusion that neither of the sources support. Is that not SYNTH? You are the ones coming up with this brand new theory, that there is a thesis to this article and it requires verification and notability. You are requiring us to prove this OR of yours wrong. The facts of the article are cited and notable. We never said the article had a purpose, a design, or a motive. We said it had utility. And as for there being no 'meme' matching the title out there, requiring us to only phrase our article titles as Top-100-lists-of-whatever-VH1-thinks-is-catchy, forget it. There's even that.
 * Actors who played Batman characters
 * Anime characters played by white actors in live-action adaptations
 * Actor John Goodman played Fred Flinstone in the movie
 * Batman again
 * which actors have played Superman over the years? Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read WP:SYNTHESIS and don't see as how that is violated in any possible way. You can easily verify those movies were based on something previously animated, and who was in them.   D r e a m Focus  23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the part about how secondary sources are required for interpretation? The raison d'être for a list is what needs secondary sources, nobody is debating the fact that these people played animated characters. Abductive (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to choose your words a little more carefully. Secondary sources are required for verification. Interpretation sounds like OR. Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources? You can easily find a credit listing for the movie.  The main articles about them list who stared in them, and that the film was based on a cartoon.  If you need references just go there. If you don't doubt the information, then you are just wikilawyering.  Wikipedia is not a set of rules, or a bureaucracy.  Use common sense.   D r e a m Focus  23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No secondary sources exist saying actors who have played animated charaters are a notable class. Abductive (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources do not establish notability by 'saying actors who have played animated charaters are a notable class'. They establish notability by being reliable sources of note and mentioning animated characters and the actors that play them. As for whether there are any that note the combination, see above. Enough of this brainstorming about how the article might be deficient. Research and back up your claims with evidence or go write essays somewhere. Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No list out there does that. Check out WP:list and all the [Dynamic List which show things like [[List_of_companies_named_after_people]].  For a list, its fine.  It links to notable subjects which have their own wikipedia articles.   D r e a m Focus  00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Google books says there are secondary sources. One of the books analyses the situation, saying, "...engineering structures and systems — like bridges, skyscrapers, airplanes, and power plants — are frequently produced by companies named after people." This validates my argument. Abductive (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, he was wrong. You threw pointless meaningless arguments and one of them finally stuck. There are sources for buildings named after people, just like there are sources for each and every one of these people, and each and every one of these movies, as evidenced by the fact that each and every single example of both categories are linked to articles about them.
 * The OR required is not that required to come up with the list, but rather that required to include the list in the encyclopedia as a notable intersection of properties. Powers T 20:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Now we come to the meat of it. This is where deletionists and inclusionists really differ. WP rules about Content of articles only apply to the focus of an article inasmuch as they are WP:DELETION. That, and the inevitable grey area caused by "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to" are the rules that apply to articles as a whole. That two rocks (actors and animated characters) are required to bang one against the other is not original research. Whether it makes a spark or a flint chip or is a waste of time is in the mind of the reader. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reiterating my  Delete per above. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:VOTE potentially readable as a second editor's vote struck for clarity's sake. There is no need for votes to be written twice, ever. You seem to have a little time to kill. Perhaps a reason? Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC) -Clarify- I meant reason as in, perhaps a reasoned argument for deletion could be made in a similar amount of time to a vote. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that once an AFD is relisted to garner more consensus, you have to reiterate your vote. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard that, and the AfD was reopened for another reason. Abductive (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the AFD was relisted to garner more consensus; it says so. As a note, editors should refrain from editing other users comments. I'm fine if a neutral admin feels they should cross out my comment. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean-up per AfD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for deletion. This article needs clean-up, mainly expanding, to show the significance of the genre and add sourcing. These are not reasons to delete. And categories are complimentary to lists, we don't choose one or the other - they work together to convey information - a category by definition is a brute force list only of those articles that exist and have been correctly categorized. -- Banj e  b oi   19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this straw man argument. No one actually suggested that the article should be deleted because it's poorly written or that categories aren't complimentary to lists. In fact, Category:actors who have played animated characters doesn't even exist. You also didn't address the issues of notability, indiscrimination and original research. — Rankiri (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "straw man": I believe you have made erroneous assumptions as to Benjiboi's meaning and motives. I refer you to "Categorize all actors into Category:Voice actors and Delete per nominator. Matthewedwards : Chat  01:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)" and to WP:AGF, which is not a contest to see whose heart beats the most pure, but a way to look at another editor's argument to see what you actually know about it and what you are only assuming.
 * Re: "doesn't even exist". Irony. A call for deletion saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Maybe it was deleted? Or perhaps 'Category:actors who have played animated characters' has not been created yet. As for N, IINFO, and OR being addressed, see your comment below, about finding it in all the clutter. They have already been addressed. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These are common arguments and a category suggestion is indeed in the above conversations. To address your other concerns; (i) notability? These are notable works and notable actors playing notable characters, I think that ship has sailed; (ii) indiscriminate? Um, hardly the title is rather specific actors who have played animated characters is there something unclear or ambiguous there, then clarify in the lede and possibly tweak the title if it's a real issue; (iii) original research? really? how is listing actor X, who is credited as playing character Y in movie Z, in any way original research? The works themselves can be cited as sources presuming there is a list of which actors played which characters. If I'm missing something here please let me know, maybe there was some problematic content that was deleted before I saw the article, perhaps the wrong standard for what is or isn't original research is being employed to apply that characterization mistakenly. -- Banj e  b oi   20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I already gave my answers to all these questions in my earlier exchange with Dream Focus. Good luck finding them in this clutter. — Rankiri (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your discussion was actually quite easy to find. I disagree with your assessment however, you seem to be comparing similar things as being equal. Just because a cartoon or comic was made into a live action film doesn't automatically mean every actor would be listed here at all. That would also seem to suggest a list restructuring if there were several hundred rather than several dozen movies to be encompassed. Every list doesn't start as a featured level product. Consensus organically susses out what information benefits the body of human knowledge and how to present it. If the list indeed becomes too large then it can be split between manga vs. other animated characters, etc. -- Banj e  b oi   22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Benjiboi makes some good points here; one I would like to point out one in particular: "Every list doesn't start as a featured level product" AKA WP:DEMOLISH. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I no longer see any point in answering every single objection, so I'll just reiterate my views here and try to get out of this discussion. A topic (in this case, actors who have played cartoon characters) is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines. If we conclude that list topics do not fall under WP:GNG, it will be a direct invitation to fill Wikipedia with indiscriminately chosen cross-categorizations and other meaningless content. Of course, one can say that my argument is a form of WP:ALLORNOTHING, but if you keep List of actors who have played animated characters and delete, say, List of actors who have played fat characters, wouldn't it some a sign of logical inconsistency and hypocrisy on your part?


 * The arguments made by the opposing side may sound persuasive, but only until you realize that they could just as easily apply to List of actors who have played bold characters, List of actors who have played wigged characters, List of actors who have played moustached characters, List of actors who have played bearded characters, List of actors who have furred characters (e.g. Peter Mayhew), List of actors who have played shaved characters, lists of actors and actresses who played kings, queens, emperors, empresses, princes, princesses, dukes, duchesses, royal bastards, extraterrestrial royalties, and countless millions of similarly purposeless and trivial lists. This should be a consensus building discussion, not a form of lobbying. The opposing side repeatedly dismisses the fact that the list is unsourced, non-notable and encyclopedically unsound. — Rankiri (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other crap exists or doesn't exist or will be created if this survives is rather erroneous, we go by if this list can be encyclopedic and adhere to Wikipedia standards. Just for kicks here are some current list article along the list of actors genre:


 * 1) List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners
 * 2) List of actors who played President of the United States
 * 3) List of actors who have played comic book characters
 * 4) List of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes
 * 5) List of actors who have played the Doctor
 * 6) List of actors who have played animated characters
 * 7) List of actors considered for the James Bond character
 * 8) List of actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year
 * 9) List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for foreign language performances
 * 10) List of actors who have played multiple roles in the same film
 * 11) List of actors considered for the Batman character
 * 12) List of actors who appeared on Charmed
 * 13) List of actors who have played video game characters
 * 14) List of actors who played Santa Claus
 * 15) List of actors considered for the part of the Doctor
 * These would likely all be seen as cumbersome on their respective parent articles and all lists can be better. Some of these are featured lists as well. -- Banj e b oi   00:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, other stuff exists is exactly how I would describe the essence of your post. The main idea of my previous comment, however, was that this thoughtless kind of cherry-picking is capricious, subjective and unbecoming for an encyclopedia. I'll prefer to stay consistent in my views, so when List of actors who played angry babysitters comes under AfD I won't have to retract my entire position. — Rankiri (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Actors playing live action versions of cartoon characters is a notable phenomenon in and of itself (unlike any of the strawmen examples given above), as documented in reliable sources such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Independent, and the Los Angeles Daily News. This list is thus appropriate for Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Way out of scope, contains no references or encyclopedic analysis of the subject, nor do I think it is possible with a topic this broad. Many sub-lists might have the proper scope for a list article but this topic is just way too broad to write an encyclopedic article about without using a synthesis of original research to tie it together. None of the sources given so far address the article as a whole, which is needed to ascertain notability of the especially broad subject matter.  Them  From  Space  01:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by "address the article as a whole?" The Post-Gazette article alone gives about 20 actors who have played live-action versions of animated characters, in an article about "a long line of cartoon characters to go live action". How does this source in particular not contribute towards the notability of this article's topic? DHowell (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep DHowell has well demonstrated that the topic is notable and the other claims made by the nomination just seem to be matters of taste. Lists are not superseded by categories per WP:CLS. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Editors still don't understand that this kind of list is not indiscriminate. It includes notable actors who have played notable animated characters in notable films. And there's news coverage on the topic of live action versions of animations and the actors playing in them, e.g.. Ah, I see DHowell beat me to it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We understand just fine that the list itself is not indiscriminate. The problem is that we don't think Wikipedia should be including it, because to include all information indiscriminately is a recipe for disaster.  Powers T 14:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep. The sources are exactly what I was talking about when I said the topic needed sources showing interest in actors who have played formerly animated characters as a class. It's not a violation of WP:Synthesis. Abductive (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2009 (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.