Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female television 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   delete. A category is the correct method of maintaining this otherwise unmanageable list. List is completely unsourced and subjective. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List of female television actors

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, as half the actors in the world should be on it. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  03:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  03:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It's pretty illogical and manifestly unmanageable. &mdash; La Pianista ( T • C • S ) 05:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrggghhhh! Kill it afore it kills us! WP:LISTCRUFT! Let IMDb handle this burden!  If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:LISTCRUFT. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While one can appreciate the time and dedication it took to compile this partial list, as they have also created List of female film actors, with sublists List of American actresses, List of Chinese actresses, List of Japanese actresses , List of Indian actresses , List of Philippine actresses , List of Iranian actresses , List of Italian actresses , List of Thai actresses , as well as 2 others now at AfD... List of male film actors (A-K), and List of male film actors (L-Z)... I have to agree "what's the point". All LISTCRUFT. Perhaaps they should all be combined into one larger AFD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlimited/unmaintainable list. Waaaaay too broad a criteria. 23skidoo (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep "notable" is assumed--such lists are limited to the people with WP articles, as is obvious--with probably a few red links where articles are needed. That's how we are different from IMdB--they include everyone, we do not. An uncritical list like theirs is of use for some purposes, and they do it well; a list of those with WP articles is something we do well. If the lists can be maintained, they should be kept. Browsing is a legitimate function of an encyclopedia--as basic as looking up defined topics.  These all of them, given those as general as this, are better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates, thus assisting navigation. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. There are of course people for whom all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better  things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful.  DGG (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability is not the issue. This list may be tidy and impressively long, but it can never be complete! At least the criteria of List of Indian actresses  makes the list somewhat finite, I would argue that at least 90% of actors with articles on Wikipedia have appeared on television. If someone creates a List of female actors who have never appeared on television, I promise to leave it alone. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per items 3, 6 and 7 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It may need to be split up in some way for size reasons but it's maintainable and allows information that a category cannot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Do not call things cruft. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not going to weigh in on keep or delete, since both sides have made some good points. Not a delete, because there are people who seem to be working on trying to improve the list and make it indiscriminate.  And the "half the actors in the world could be here" argument, the theme for the nominations of all the actors' lists today, is tiresome.  However, even without stretching the list out to the limits, I think it's fair to say that there are literally thousands of actresses whose names the average person would recognize; and more than that aren't household words, but whom many people would be aware of and add to the list.  In the long run, I don't think this is going to be workable. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above per Stifle. Eusebeus (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The List contains information (a summary of television credits), that cannot be included in a category. There may be quite a number of actresses to include, but the article could be split (by country, say), to accommodate this. It hasn't grown enough for this to be an issue yet. If we do that, I'm not sure how a list is less maintainable than a category. Silverfish (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete huge WP:LISTCRUFT that only will get more and more unmanageable as it gets backfilled with previous and future entries. Everything in the list is already in a category. Want to know what their famous for? Go to to category and click their entry. User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 16:54, 11 September 2008 (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.