Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood


 * 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.

The parallel discussions of Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination), and Articles for deletion/List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood concern similar articles and cover essentially the same ground, so in closing this discussion I have taken into account all three discussions, as well as previous AfDs.

The count of !votes has been rendered useless by, if not exactly canvassing, an influx of a large number of editors who are clearly not very familiar with either our inclusion guidelines or the deletion policy. However, while the delete side generally put forth a consistent and policy-based argument---that a list that by definition will be empty in X years cannot be encyclopaedic---the case for keeping the articles is significantly undermined by a reliance on assertions that the topic is interesting, harmless, or some other argument conventionally considered invalid at AfD.

With a few exceptions, those in favour of keep failed to either refute the argument for deletion, or put forward their own policy-based reason for keeping the article. On that basis, I see a clear consensus to delete all three lists. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability is not temporary. A list of living former US presidents will be notable as long as the United States of America still exists, but once every actor from this era dies this article will be pointless. This list is also arbitrarily defined (when was the “Golden Age” beyond “before the Studio System fell”?) and most of the younger actors on this list are barely relevant to the era since they just debuted during the tail end of it at a young age. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is WP:INTERESTING, but it fails WP:LISTCRIT, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:BLP.
 * The criteria for inclusion are an unencyclopedic cross-categorization: actors who worked during an ill-defined period who are also long-lived (although the youngest is only 65). It also favors child actors, arguably an implicit third cross-categorization. These cross-categorizations are not defining characteristics.
 * The criteria for inclusion are ambiguous. "Golden Age" isn't well-defined, as shown by this self-referential sentence: "Due to disagreement amongst editors regarding the time period of the Golden Age of Hollywood, the 302 living actors who made their credited debut after 1949 and before 1960 are listed in this section." (Ron Howard was a Golden Age actor??)
 * There's no evidence that this list is treated as a group by reliable sources. Of course some magazine or newspaper will periodically do a "where are they now" feature on some subset of the actors, but they're writing about a more specific subset and they're writing at a specific time. Reliable sources are not actively tracking this group of people.
 * Most (or perhaps all) of the entries are unverifiable. How do we know Anne Vernon (b. 1924) is alive in 2021? She hasn't had a credited role since 1972 and I don't see any recent news coverage. Our claim that she's living is based, as far as I can tell, on the absence of a published obituary. Claiming she's alive in 2021 with no supporting source is original research.
 * The list likely presents incorrect information about recently deceased people, a BLP violation. While it's one thing for a biography article to omit the person's death for a while, it's quite another for us to positively assert that a person is alive. This list of more than 400 sometimes obscure figures requires constant maintenance and cannot possibly be reliable. Betty Lou Holland, for example, remained a "living actor" for 7 months after her death. (Some of the listed actors don't even have their own Wikipedia pages!)
 * The topic is of only temporary interest. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT make it clear that a topic must have enduring significance to be included. I presume nobody would argue in favor of a list of living English Renaissance theatre actors or a list of living MCU actors. One is TOOLATE and the other TOOSOON. This list is only interesting for a few decades: admittedly much longer than the kind of flash-in-the-pan topics we usually think of, but it's still ephemeral and lacks enduring notability.
 * The list will eventually become empty and be deleted. This is evidence that it will be non-notable in the future. WP:NOTTEMPORARY tells us that notability is permanent, so I infer that the list must not be notable today, either.
 * pburka (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Maybe find a better comparison argument than list of living former US presidents. I think the maximum number of that is four, which is right now. But along those lines, any such list of living individuals for any demographic, is a dwindling list.   — Maile  (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really, my point was that a list of living former presidents would *not* be a dwindling list since there would regularly be new additions, therefore it will be notable into the foreseeable future. There will never be new golden age Hollywood stars since that era ended long ago, so the list will not be notable in the foreseeable future. Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The bulk of these were, logically, child actors from that period who merely share longevity in common now. But that's not a defining characteristic and there's little indication that them being alive still is a notable intersection or specific group. While a List of Golden Age of Hollywood actors may be a reasonable list – though its length may be unwieldy and hard to limit to those subjectively most famous during that period – the cross-categorization of that with those who were young enough to still be alive today and still in fact are isn't encyclopedic. A "living" list for other eras or other broad occupations wouldn't make sense either (see also Articles for deletion/List of living silent film actors). Reywas92Talk 00:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep List of video games notable for negative reception is an actual list. Honestly your a bit short-sighted there are tons of list on Wikipedia that probably should be deleted for your exact reasoning but you seem to have some kind of agenda with list dealing with surviving of a certain area, oldest living, etc. They are still relevant as long as you can have current content. --Tommieboi (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop copypasting a bad “whatabout” argument that doesn’t even correctly interpret my argument for deletion. The list you cite is notable because there will always be badly reviewed games and those reviews don’t predictably cease to exist like humans do. When you say “notable for being a member of finite group living today” you’re really saying “member of finite group notable for being alive in 2021” which is obviously not a claim to notability. Dronebogus (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a fun article that doesn't hurt anyone. Bkatcher (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. And saying “it doesn’t hurt anyone” isn’t true either since it still takes up room and is potentially giving out false info about living or recently dead people for no good reason. Dronebogus (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic and useful resource.† Encyclopædius  08:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the opposite of encyclopedic. And who would seriously find this useful, and why? Dronebogus (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Golden Age of Hollywood is considered to have continued into the 1960s, and this article's cutoff of 1959 is entirely arbitrary, as noted on the talk page. This could conceivably be thousands of individuals longer when that is included. List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema is far too long to be useful but lists movies up to 1969. I'm not sure about other, better pages about film history highlighting the stars, but with this list having quite a few with only minor roles and and those who have predictably passed away, this isn't it. Reywas92Talk 14:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Those !voting "keep", do we have any sources discussing this list as a collective? BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and fails WP:NLIST. This list also has many WP:V issues as well as a hint of WP:LISTCRUFT. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It certainly falls under the category of encyclopedic.Radiohist (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d say it more likely fails the category definition of “encyclopedic” as it’s useless arbitrarily defined trivia. Dronebogus (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you could say articles and lists about reality shows are useless arbitrarily defined trivia. You could say that about a lot of things. Whether something is trivia or not is subjective.Radiohist (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but what’s more-or-less not subjective is that this list is unlikely to be ever be defined in an agreed-upon manner, extremely difficult to maintain and verify properly, and ultimately pointless as the topic will not even exist in the future. And yes, some people have argued “then why delete it now?” about the last point, but my counter-argument is “then why NOT delete it now if it will eventually get deleted anyway?”Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Only a person who doesn't have a good argument and knows he is probably worong answers qurstions with Why not do...Radiohist (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that, other than it’s meant to be insulting to me somehow. And perhaps consider checking your spelling before you post. Dronebogus (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I challenge Dronebogus not to have to have the last word and just let people vote. Bkatcher (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it’s a debate, not a popularity contest. I have a right to dispute your arguments just as you have a right to dispute mine. Or at least tell people that their spelling is wrong and I couldn’t understand what they were trying to say. Dronebogus (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A google search shows there are sources which discus the topic of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood, which indicates they are notable as a group. Also in examples such as the NY Times obit for [] Olivia de Havilland it says in the lead paragraph "She was 104 and one of the last surviving stars of Hollywood’s fabled Golden Age", indicating these people are notable not just for being famous actors, but specifically for being long living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood. I believe this article passes GNG, and therefore should not be deleted. Issues of article quality are a matter of cleanup, and AFD is not cleanup. Rhino131 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol either the NYT is wrong or this article is. We don't have a good definition of the Golden Age but if we want to use this mere passing, vague statement, this page needs a narrower time span... She's notable for her acting, not for being long lived still, even if that's a true fact about her (that's the only line in the obit that would be any different had she died earlier). Reywas92Talk 14:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't further discussion to go "lol". It only serves to increase hostility in this discussion as it can be seen as you behaving in a very condescending way towards the other participants.Radiohist (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This would be a more compelling argument if Olivia de Havilland were on this list, but of course she's not because she's dead. As time progresses this list will dwindle to increasingly obscure actors with increasingly tenuous links to the inconsistently-defined "Golden Age". The Times obituary might support a case for a List of last surviving stars of the Golden Age of Hollywood page, which could include people like de Havilland who was described as "one of the last surviving stars of Hollywood’s fabled Golden Age" in a reliable source. But that's a different list than this one. pburka (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable topic. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well no based on the fact that me and numerous other editors both disagree with you, plus the lack of significant coverage of this topic found thus far, I’d say it’s not obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While I and numerous other editors agree with Joe. You know, you don't have to argue with every single 'keep' vote. Bkatcher (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and as far as the nonsense that it will have to be deleted once they're all dead, see List of surviving veterans of World War I. Upon the 2012 death of Florence Green, the list was redirected to a more appropriate list, while preserving the long and interesting history of the original page. I see no reason why a similar solution wouldn't work in this case. I'll add that I agree that the list should be narrowed, and the inclusion of Ron Howard, et al., is ridiculous, but content disputes are not dealt with by deleting the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - For the reasons already stated above. When the day comes that all people associated with the "Golden Age of Hollywood" are gone, I don't see why the page can't be renamed to something more appropriate and have the content adjusted for the name change. The list has issues that need to resolved, such as further discussion on narrowing down which names should be mentioned (as mentioned above, Ron Howard and so on), but that can be discussed in the talk page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is a topic discussed by many reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And where are these sources…? Dronebogus (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Rhino131 and Tommieboi. 172.58.110.212 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the arguments already named. --Clibenfoart (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * keep I think the page should stay it's gonna be many many many many decades before the last one eventually dies and by then, as someone else said the article could be renamed to something else.--ThatBaileyLad (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the article List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema was deleted with the consensus that the criteria were too broad and lacked a widely agreed-upon definition. That would appear to set a precedent for deleting this article for similar reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The only reasonable source I could find that discusses this list is this, which on it's own does not satisfy WP:NLIST. Then there's the obvious WP:V issue; just because you can't find any reports to say somebody has died, doesn't mean they're still alive. This list is definitively stating that every person listed is living, which is completely unverifiable, and subsequently strips the list of any encyclopaedic value. I'm also in agreement with the sentiment that any perceived notability this list has will die out with it's last member, meaning that, by definition, it's notability is only temporary. – 2 . O . Boxing  13:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment How long do these discussions usually go on? Bkatcher (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually a week, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A fascinating resource. Half our sports and politics lists are arbitarily defined lists as well and much loved. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Examples please. And also how many times must I say “people like it” and “it’s interesting” aren’t valid AfD arguments? Dronebogus (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dronebogus Look at the amount of people whose time has been thoroughly wasted by you. It has been 12 days and you have not presented one objective reason to delete this page. It is time to close this discussion.Radiohist (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I would say you haven’t. You seem to have a rather pugnacious and belittling attitude towards me which would suggest you’re looking for a personal victory in a fight rather than a productive consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All of your statements have been borderline subjective and in the realm of "Why not delete it?". Why not do something is not a valid argument. So far you have been condescending towards every person who has expressed a different opinion. The fact that you have been asked on your talk page to refrain from hastily starting deletion discussions proves this page shouldn't be deleted. The majority of the people agree that there is no reason to delete the page, so I suggest we end this discussion.Radiohist (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, my main arguments were “notability isn’t finite, so this finite subject isn’t notable” and “the subject has no agreed-upon criteria for inclusion, making the list WP:INDISCRIMINATE”. I also agree with the argument that there simply aren’t enough sources discussing this as an actual group. And I have no idea which deletion incidents your referring to specifically, but it doesn’t “prove” anything since I’ve started countless others that were deleted (and plenty of others which weren’t) without fanfare, and in any case it has nothing to do with the issue at hand and is simply an ad hominem attack. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment These discussions usually go on for a week, but this has gone on for nearly two. Who makes the final decision here? Bkatcher (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An admin will make a decision. I imagine this one will be complicated because the analysis requires more than counting votes. That editor will need to evaluate the arguments to determine if they're policy- and guideline-based, and then decide on the strength of those whether the page should be kept or deleted. pburka (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per pburka; as the usual example of trivial intersection of "characteristic x" and "living people" (with the additional implication of WP:NOTTEMPORARY); with no sources provided to actually back up LISTN (a trivial mention in an NYT obit. is not "significant coverage of the topic"; the same way a trivial mention of anything is not; and given the fact that most of the keeps are just a lesson in "how many different ways can WP:ITSINTERESTING be ignored". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 18 September 2021 (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.