Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fat actors


 * 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

List of fat actors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - there is no possible objective definition of what makes for a "fat" actor. Especially in body-conscious Hollywood, what's "fat" there is healthy weight for height and age somewhere else. Being "fat" is not a permanent condition and actors frequently gain or lose weight to play parts. See for example List of actors who gained or lost weight for a role, none of whose gainers are listed as "fat actors," as an illustration of the subjective inclusion criteria of this list. Otto4711 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Delete Unneccesary listing Julia 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This does not seem to be intended as a list of actors who are fat, but a list of actors well-known for playing fat people. -Amarkov moo! 03:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if kept, the name of the article should be changed, or it will rapidly fill up with names of merely overweight actors. --Xyzzyplugh 04:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. More like actors who are known to be fat and who play characters known to be fat, as I interpret the lead paragraph. It wouldn't include Martin Lawrence for playing Big Momma. There is no objective definition for 'fat', so the reliable sources label them for you. If the list doesn't contain any actors you feel should be on it, it means the list is in progress so you should add them, and there shouldn't be much of an overlap with list of actors who gained or lost weight for a role as nowhere does it say those actors are known to be fat. Consider a rename to List of overweight actors. –Pomte 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Obesity in film, which seems to be a much suitable title as evident by its content.-- TBC Φ  talk?  05:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename as above. Fat can be seen as offensive to many people. -- KZ      Talk  •  Vandal  •  Contrib  08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename or delete Near impossibile to objectively decide what constitutes 'fat'.60.231.76.127 10:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - perhaps rename to Obese actors in Hollywood. - Richard Cavell 11:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether the article is renamed as suggested above or not, the definition of "fat" remains largely (sorry) subjective, at least in the interface between skinny and gross, and it is therefore not possible to make this article encyclopedically complete or reliable. Therefore it should not be here.--Anthony.bradbury 11:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the article is very well referenced, and if the 'fat man' stereotype can be verified, then that's all the better for this article.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-referenced. And let's stop making pointless euphemisms here; the older actors would not have flinched at the word "fat", and modern ones tend to be playing the humorous part of "the fat guy" (or gal) - calling them "obese" is just confusing. And you know that in 20 years people will be saying, "Don't call them "obese", that's a slur - call them 'metabolism-challenged'." Brianyoumans 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hilarious! --Lostcause365 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I'm surprised someone has put this much effort into digging up sources for one of these lists.  Anyway it really needs a new title as the current one implies something that the article is not.  I disagree with Obesity in film as it's just a list of  "fat man" character actors and not obesity in general.  Obese actors in Hollywood suffers the same issues as the current title.  The title needs to convey the fact that this is a list of character actors whose role is a fat person, but in a more succinct way. Arkyan 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...a debate like this reminds me of Kirstie Alley and, even more so, Eddie Murphy. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Please take a look at the article, its talk page, its numerous references, and its history before "voting" to keep or delete or rename. The primary reference is to "Warner Brothers' Fat men" by Dana Gioia from the book "O.K. You Mugs: Writers on Movie Actors." All names are referenced to sources such as that book about the character actor genre of the fat man. None are just someone's personal opinion that an actor needs to go on a diet, and there has not really been a problem with keeping such original research out of the article. The list has been stable for months. It does not include present day comedians who put on a fat suit to play a role, or who happen to put on a few pounds, but only those whose girth was their fortune. The men listed made their livelihood by working as a character actor in that genre. Most of the individuals are from the golden age of Hollywood, such as Sydney Greenstreet, who played "The Fat Man" in "The Maltese Falcon". He certainly did not play "The Obese Man." Likewise on the list is silent movie comic "Fatty Arbuckle" who we should not try to rename  "Obese Arbuckle." I searched each name which I found on the original list in such databases as the New York Times to confirm in their obituaries that they were there referred to as "roly-poly character actor" or "rotund character actor" to conform to the definition made in "Warner Brothers Fat men." Disagreements should be dealt with by the normal editing process, not be eliminating a valid type of character actor from the golden age of movies. The nominator should also have notified me on my talk page since I am the principle contributor to the article with 49 edits, per Edison 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The OR/POV that's at issue here is not whether someone will add actors who they think need to go on a diet. The OR/POV that's at issue is the lack of objective standards for the list. Otto4711 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The standard is having a reliable source say that an actor primarily worked in that genre. Likewise we do not have an objective standard for other types of character actors than second party coverage in reliable sources. Edison 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am finding nothing on Google indicating that there is such a thing as a "fat actor" genre. Even your essay source does not assert that there is such a thing, only that the author likes some actors who were fat. One opinion piece does not a genre make and we are left with the same problem, that there is no objective definition of "fat." Otto4711 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor. to add a random thought, is there any rationale I can see to accept the definition from the cited opinion piece as authoritative. Otto4711 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment please note that the "essay" was a chapter in a published book, which should satisfy WP:ATT. The term used for the genre varied over the years. In the obituaries of many of these men or in reviews from the 40's they were often referred to as "rotund character actor" or "roly poly charactor actor" which seem more objectionable than "fat" but if the collective wisdom is to term the genre "obese" I could live with that. It was and is clearly treated as a genre like "leading man" in reviews and casting calls. At present it is still a genre. The IMDB bio of John Banner refers to him as "roly poly character actor" . Ditto for Buck Taylor . Please check the references for documentation of references to all the names listed as "roly poly " or "rotund" character actors. Edison 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Genre means what you think it means. That a number of actors shared a physical type and as a result may have played similar roles in a number of films does not mean that a genre exists. There is no "fat man" film genre any more than there is a "scared Negro servant" genre or a "sultry French maid" genre or "stock character of your choice" genre. The actors on the played a wide variety of roles across a wide variety of genres, everything from menacing murderer to comedic foil to romantic lead, and they cannot be classified as "fat actors" on the basis of a genre that simply doesn't exist. Otto4711 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Grouping actors by physical type could serve a useful purpose to anyone studying acting, including actors and comedians themselves (but others, too). The footnotes show that some actors were known for being fat and the proper use of sourcing provides an adequate way to regulate the list. Whether or not you want to use the word "genre" it's clear that some actors have used their fatness in at least some of their roles. Noroton 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument to keep an article. Otto4711 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you want to use the word "genre" it's clear that some actors have used their fatness in at least some of their roles. Noroton 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep (1) because the existence of the character type (or types) in the movies is shown in the footnotes; (2) because the list is well regulated by insisting that any actor included on it must have a citation showing at least some responsible party out there thought the actor was known for being fat; and (3) because there is at least one serious purpose to the article (it is a good first step in looking into how fat actors use their size in their roles). "Strong" because the article is cited so impressivly and because insistance that there must always be some objective outside standard (other than citations) for who can or can't be included in a list would unnecessarily restrict Wikipedia. Noroton 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (minor change made in first line Noroton 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * So if I wanted to make a List of black American presidents and add Bill Clinton to it, you'd be OK with that because I have a citation from a responsible party that says so? Or should that list maybe be subject to some objective standard, like this one should be? Otto4711 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your point is a classicly bad Reductio ad absurdam argument. If such an article were nominated, it wouldn't be nominated for improper sourcing but as a hoax (if it treated the claim seriously). If it didn't treat the claim as true, or more precisely treated the "Clinton is the first black president" meme as an encyclopedic subject, it could potentially make an interesting article (if a bit trivial). If, say, you were to find a more serious example, where a bad article had sourcing that was seriously deficient, then you'd have something to discuss. But you haven't argued that the sourcing is deficient, and if you did, the first step would be to tag it as poorly sourced and explain yourself on the talk page, not to go first to an AfD discussion. Noroton 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (edited my first sentence Noroton 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * As I said in different ways twice above, "proper" sourcing from "responsible" parties. What you're looking for Otto (correct me if I'm wrong) is a Wikipedia standard where we can't list anything unless some outside authority certifies all of its items as being on the list. Cultural lists can't work that way, so it seems you want them all out. Well there's a value to lists that aren't quite like the Periodic Table of the Elements or some genus of fauna or family of flora. You make some of the same points at Articles for deletion/List of Christmas dishes. Noroton 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But I'm not saying that there are not sources in which these guys are called "fat." The problem with this list is not sourcing. The problem with this list, as I've said repeatedly, is that there is no possible objective standard for "fat". There is, infamously, a published source that calls Karen Carpenter "fat" (or "chunky" or "chubby", I don't recall the exact word, doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion). 95% or more of the population would not have considered her "fat" at the time the source was published or thereafter while she was starving herself to death, yet because it exists she would by your standard be eligible for List of fat musicians. It's not unreasonable to expect that lists like this be restricted to things that are objectively defineable. Compare this to the aforementioned list of actors who put on or lost weight for a role. I have no problem with that article because it restricts itself to factual, defineable entries that don't rely on the opinion of either Wikipedia editors or external people. Otto4711 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Objective" is not the proper standard. "Fair" is the proper standard and it is necessarily going to have some gray areas on the edges. If that results in some debates on the article's talk page in the future, why not let the editors who are interested in the subject deal with that &mdash; they certainly are willing to take the risk of that. And the risk seems a fair price to pay in order to keep the article. If some editor puts Karen Carpenter on a list and provides the citation, other editors can counter that with other citations or pictures that would convince 95% or more of the population. Noroton 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fair" is the standard? I'm not familiar with WP:BEFAIR, but if you say so. So if it's not "fair" that actors are listed as "fat" then I can take them off the list? Fine, then in that case it's not "fair" that any actor is listed as fat so the entire list should be deleted. Or, we could use an actual standard that makes some sort of sense, which would be objectivity. Expecting that a list article have an objective definition for existence and inclusion may or may not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than sitting around trying to figure out whether it's "fair" to put someone on the list. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be popularity contests or votes and the idea that editors should spend time trying to convince each other that it is or isn't "fair" to call Karen Carpenter "fat" is bizarre. Expecting editors to spend time trying to convince one another that an actor is fat enough to be on a fat actors list is ludicrous. Otto4711 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, here's what you sit around and do: You discuss whether or not the authority being cited is correct. You do that by first trying to find other citations that either help or hurt the assertion made in the questionable citation. And when you've exhausted other resources you only have your common sense to rely on and you use it. That's being fair. When we sit around and do that, we do the actual editing that Wikipedians are here for. What's bizarre is that you don't think Wikipedians can use their heads. There is an area between rote rule following and complete subjectivity and you don't appear to recognize that, but it's in that area of reasoning things out and judging what weight to give the opinions of particular sources where encyclopedia editors make many of their most important decisions. The solution is not to run away from subjects where this kind of work needs to be done. Noroton 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Well referenced with external opinions of who's fat Fg2 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The list does not arbitrarily claim some actor as fat. Most of the entries are externally sourced. However, if one needs an objective definition of fat, there is Body Mass Index to calculate that. For that, every actor's weight (at a particular arbitrary age) and adult height have to be known! It goes without saying the process would be cumbersome! With such detailed referencing, the list should be kept. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I agree that the current title doesn't imply the kind of selectivity that's actually being used in this list. Should probably be renamed somehow, but I'd rather let someone be WP:BOLD than try to make consensus happen on it.  Mango juice talk 12:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Soft Keep, they're all known for their talents and for their weight, but an article? I would recommend making a category of Fat Actors, which would serve the same purpose. There are lists of American actors, Jewish Actors, i.e., so why not this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mghabmw (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Exactly, even you're unsure. This article doesn't belong here. This coming from a fat guy. Bigman17 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as other seem unsure above, let's get real. First of all, it shouldn't be fat, it should be obes or something like that. Secondly, it DOES NOT belong here. Bigman17 06:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the name of the article is completely wrong. Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If kept, rename to List of obese actors. Obese is at least defined.  Vegaswikian 04:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Imo the name should reflect that it is about the golden age of Hollywood, not became list of every fatty actor. The word list itself is inappropriate. Pavel Vozenilek 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment No objection to List of obese actors. If the article gets deleted (looks now like there might be a consensus for Keep) could those on the list then be added to a category such as Obese actors? Dead obese actors?corresponding to the list?  Does it seem right to restrict it to male actors (some actresses refer to themselves as "actors") and would it be ok to limit it to nonliving ones (takes out some WP:BLP issues and maintenance issues everytime a present day actor puts on a fat suit for a Saturday Night Live sketch.)  Input welcome on the discussion page of thee article. Edison 04:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe overweight is the more appropriate term here, as not all the actors are necessarily obese. –Pomte 05:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete In theory justifiable, but that doesn't make it a good idea. --Dtcdthingy 23:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because some actors' whole identity are sometimes focused on their weight, such as comedians type-casted as a loveable fat guy. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:16, 18 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.