Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainers related to academics


 * 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  01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

List of entertainers related to academics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

"Related to academics" is a vague phrase. Also, the criteria for inclusion seems to be completely random. Some entertainers are included because they have relatives who are somehow related to "academics" ("Angelina Jolie, actress, is the niece of renowned volcanologist Barry Voight"). Others are included because they were in an academic field prior to or following their entertainment careers. musicpvm 04:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very vague and arbitrary. Are Isaac Asimov, Rob Buckman and Pamela Stephenson related to themselves? Graeme Garden and Graham Chapman also qualified and practised as doctors of medicine. And if Pamela Stephenson is listed, why isn't Billy Connolly (her husband)? Dbromage  [Talk]  04:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a trivial intersection, and stands to encompass any person who is an entertainer and is related to academics (and how could they leave out Brian May?), although the two (the entertainment and academia) are not in any way connected, and their classification together does not serve any logical purpose. Calgary 04:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I should have thought of Brian May too! Especially now that he's going to complete his PhD in astrophysics. Maybe a list of entertainers with academic qualifications unrelated to their chosen profession would be notable? BTW, Pamela Stephenson is no longer an entertainer. She gave up that career to study psychology. Dbromage  [Talk]  04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as trivia of questionable value and coherence. I defend many lists, but this is just a bad idea for one. --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless and entirely arbitrary cross-referencing. Ford MF 05:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A shining example of WP:LISTCRUFT. The topic is completely trivial, and the qualifications for being included are too incredibly broad and vague fuzzy510 05:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial, useless, pointless intersection based on ill-defined and undefinable criteria. Snalwibma 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as pointless listcruft. Thin Arthur 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Sorry, I know the author meant well, but this is trivia at its worst. There is no significance to someone having a son, sister, aunt, father, etc. who was an "academic".  When informed that Hugh Beaumont had a son who was a professor of psychology, most of us would politely say, "Hmmm.  I didn't know that."  but few could sincerely say, "That's interesting."  To the author, you have the potential for writing interesting and informative articles for Wikipedia, so don't let our unanimous disdain deter you from future endeavors.  I don't believe that this one was even much fun to write, let alone read.  Mandsford 14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the pain... where will it end. Utterly cruftatstic.  The Rambling Man 09:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 14:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An arbitrary intersection of two classes does not make a meaningful list, quite apart from the oddness of including both those with an academic background themselves and those with academic relatives. This trivia can be mentioned in the individual articles, if deemed relevant there. Espresso Addict 16:04, 19 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.