Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional 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 close it. It appears at least some of these have been nominated separately. — CharlotteWebb 03:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fictional characters by occupation

 * The articles listed below do not link to this discussion. --- RockMFR 17:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN because most of the articles have now been listed separately here. Otto4711 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC) A mass nomination of all the articles currently housed under Category:Lists of fictional characters by occupation. In every case I think categories are the correct way to catalog this information (and in most every case it appears there is already a category for members of the fictional profession) and in a number of cases the information shouldn't be here to begin with on the basis of subjectivity/POV problems. All the concerns I expressed at Articles for deletion/List of fictional government agents apply here. Otto4711 13:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * List of alternate history United States Presidents
 * List of fictional butlers
 * List of fictional clergy and religious figures
 * List of coaches in fiction
 * List of fictional detective teams
 * List of fictional doctors
 * List of fictional Elvis impersonators
 * List of fictional hackers
 * List of hookers with hearts of gold
 * List of fictional journalists
 * List of horror film killers
 * List of fictional military people
 * List of fictional British monarchs
 * List of police and detective characters portrayed in comedy
 * List of fictional police detectives
 * List of fictional politicians
 * List of fictional Australian politicians
 * List of fictional postal employees
 * List of fictional British Prime Ministers
 * List of fictional psychiatrists
 * List of mad scientists
 * List of heroic fictional scientists and engineers
 * List of fictional serial killers
 * List of sidekicks
 * List of supervillainesses
 * List of fictional United States presidential candidates
 * List of fictional United States Presidents
 * List of fictional vampires
 * List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States
 * List of fictional witches
 * List of fictional xenoarchaeologists
 * Keep. Do not replace lists with categories, or vice versa.  And besides, "vampire" and "witch" are not occupations.  If you have issues with the notability, verifiability, or POV of a particular list, then nominate it individually. —Psychonaut 14:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are already categories for almost every one of these occupations. It's not a question of replacing one with the other. It's that a category is the better organizational scheme. As for the inclusion of the witch and vampire lists, you'll have to take that up with the person or persons who included them in the characters by occupation category. Otto4711 14:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep You think Categories are a better way to organize this information.  I prefer lists.  I see no reason why Wikipedia can't have both.  In any case, I do not like mass proposals like this one, they make it hard to deal with a subject effectively.  Especially when the first discussion in the series isn't even closed.  Poor form, I would say.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason not to have both is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and IMHO these lists are exactly that. You may disagree, but given your antipathy toward mass nominations I'd be willing to bet that you didn't review the actual lists themselves before weighing in. And as for not waiting for "the first discussion" to close being "bad form," I said clearly in Articles for deletion/List of fictional heroes that I thought all the lists in the category needed to be examined. Otto4711 15:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * characters by type is a common way to organize information, and honestly, I can't see anything in WP:NOT that fits anyway. And in some of these cases, I'd say a list would be a better idea since not all of the names deserve an article.   The content is another issue, and one that should be referred to with cleanup.  And indeed, I won't say I've reviewed all of those items.  You nominated over a dozens articles.  If you want people to judge those lists on their own merits, then nominate them individually.  I decline to participate in this discussion in any way except the nomination, which objects to the concept of it.  I don't.  If you want me to review them each, nominate them again later, on whatever other concept you believe is an issue.  Just remember, AfD is not cleanup.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep because this collection of lists don't have enough in common for us to draw a general conclusion about. Some of the lists might be good, others bad. Tarinth 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can see an advantage for a list over a category when a character is only covered by the work of fiction's article or "List of characters in XXX" lists instead of having their own article. However, I also think that all of these lists tread into the indiscriminate territory of WP:NOT. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral, with a suggestion that this AfD be closed. This is far too heterogenous a collection for a sensible mass nomination.  At a minimum, it should be split up into (say) "Fictional politicians", "Stock characters", and "Fantasy characters". Tevildo 17:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to meet everything at WP:LIST. --- RockMFR 17:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I noticed that all of the AFD tags in the article are redlinks. That needs to be fixed or people reading the lists may have difficulty finding this AFD. I doubt everyone would read through the entire days list just to find it. --65.95.18.34 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, lists are not categories. They serve different purposes.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close this articles are far too diverse to allow for an effective batch nomination. I can imagine I would !vote to keep most of these, but favor deletion of a few.-- danntm T C 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Zoe. Rebecca 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of these individuals will not be notable enough for a full article, but worth the mention. that's the point of a list. DGG 07:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with DGG and Tarinth. Wikikiwi 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All. Lists are never made redundant by categories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Speedy Keep. Amazing how often categories are confused with lists. -- User:Docu
 * Everyone who's making comments along the lines of "categories aren't lists" and "amazing how often categories and lists are confused" is missing the point of the nomination. Otto4711 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the nomination is "I think categories are the correct way to catalog this information" since that's what the nomination says. And it is wrong. AndyJones 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there's that, plus there's, you know, the rest of the nomination. Otto4711 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all this is a bit of a mixed bag, and admittedly some are borderline, but I could see any and all of them having substantial research value. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close the nominator has withdrawn and is now listing most of them seperately. No reason to keep this one open. --70.48.109.24 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, oh the irony of using indiscriminate AfD listings to try to eliminate list articles for being indiscriminate lists! To be honest, I don't find the nominator's listing of each list article on an individual AfD page any more illuminating... they've still pasted the same dubious "reason" for deletion in each one without considering the merits of each article, so we might as well discuss it here instead of pasting identical keep reasons as seems to be happening in the discussions. --Canley 15:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I have some issues with this whole situation, it is important to note that the original nominator did not perform the individual nominations himself. I do think things are too convoluted for good decisions to be made, but I don't blame Otto4711 for it.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I split them up. And while I don't intend to justify what I did &mdash; but only because I feel rather miserably about making a mess of everything &mdash; let me explain. I came across one of the articles in the list and noticed that it had an AFD tag on it, but a redlink to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/&#60;ArticleName> sub-page. (In retrospect, they had not been linked here with &#123;{subst:afd1}}.) I looked in the history to see when it was tagged; it had been awhile. Then I went to the nominator's contribution history to see if there might be other odd things happening, where I noticed that there were many lists that had red-linked afd tags. (Again in retrospect, it was every list except List of fictional actors.) Unfortunately, I didn't look at them all, and I did not do enough investigation. Thus I did not come to this sub-page and see that they were all meant to point here. At any rate, before I found that out, I had already created subpages for (I think) every page that had been tagged. So it was I who created an indiscriminate number of AFD nominations, thinking that I was creating the subpages and thus completing them, when in reality they were already completed at this subpage &mdash; Iamunknown 17:38, 5 January 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.