Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former child actors from the United States


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

List of former child actors from the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of these long random endlist lists that is better served as a category, which already exists. Many well-known actors, especially modern actors started acting as a child or a teenager. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Secret account 06:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not temporary. If they were notable as child actors they are still notable as child actors, even if that happened in the past.  If they were non-notable child actors who later became notable then they are not notable as child actors.  That makes sense to me and I hope to others too. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. I get the gist of what you're saying, but I'm not sure how it supports a Delete/Keep discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crakkerjakk (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, whatever his point was meant to be, it has nothing to do with resolving this AFD. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge We don't delete lists to favour of categories - see WP:CLN. This is especially important in BLP cases such as this because it is easier to provide citations for list entries than for category tags.  The split between current and former seems unwise as this will keeping changing and so is a maintenance burden.  But the same structure is used for numerous other countries - see lists of child actors by nationality.  I suggest having a single sortable list in which attributes such as age, sex and nationality can be columns which the reader may sort as needed. Warden (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It has fairly clear inclusion criteria and the entries are notable and child actors as a group is a well-used concept. There's a lot of media interest in child actors as a general subject, and many media articles listing former child actors who were successful or unsuccessful.  Together with WP:CLN (as already cited), that answers all the proposer's points. Arguably it could be combined with a list of current child actors. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's not really any inclusion criteria here other than being a child actor at one point, which is simply vauge and unmaintainable considering how many actors started their careers under the age of 18. If there's a certain criteria for the list, it's going to be arbrutary. Yes the media has a fascination with the concept of "child actors", but mostly as where are they now tabloid fodder (like all three links above is) which isn't the purpose of this website. Secret account 07:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the inclusion criteria could at least be that they be notable enough to have a bio on Wikipedia. It's true that not all adult actors who started their careers as children/teens were the Shirley Temples of their day, but I think basic Wikipedia notability could at least be a fair place to start (taking it beyond that could become rather subjective and difficult to employ).  If we agree they should at least be notable enough to have a Wikipedia bio, then any red-linked names can be removed once a year or so.  That would probably also be a lot easier than creating a separate set of inclusion criteria specifically for this page (over time, if/when we see a blue-linked name we keep it (let the Wikipedia community decide if they meet "notability" for a bio), and a red-linked name means we can just go ahead remove it from this list, rather than going to each bio page, researching their "notability", etc). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Secret, you can't simultaneously claim that this is better served as a category as you did in your nom, and then also claim that there is no meaningful inclusion criteria. If we can tell when an actor belongs in the child actors category then we can certainly tell when they belong in the child actors list. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Valid list on a notable topic. The arguement for deleting this and keeping the category fails WP:CLN and WP:COMMONSENSE.  Lugnuts  And the horse 17:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've personally found the list quite useful on occasion (when I have trouble remembering a former child actor's full name, etc). My main problem is the inclination of some editors to add excessively long "filmographies" for their favorite child stars.  I've proposed on the talk page that a limit of 3 or 5 of a child actor's most prominent roles (whether the child was a central character, or the film/program was notable as a box office hit, or won notable awards, etc), would probably be a better idea, rather than encouraging future editors to continue to add complete filmographies, but that's a separate issue than whether to keep the page. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists let readers access information in ways categories don't (most readers won't use tools such as AWB). The criteria for defining the list isn't an Afd-related issue, there are several meaningful ones possible. Churn and change (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as useful navigational and informational list per WP:LISTPURP, and as a complement to the category per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, "better served as a category" is not a reason for delete anything. --Cavarrone (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2012 (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.