Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male film actors (A-K) (2nd nomination)


 * 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  22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List of male film actors (A-K)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ 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 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  02:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, just as nominator says. If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:29, 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 television actors, and List of female television actors... I have to agree "what's the point". All LISTCRUFT. Perhaps they should all be combined into one larger AFD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: A crappy list that should not be on Wikipedia. Schuym1 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlimited/unmaintainable list with waaay too broad a criteria. 23skidoo (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The word was omitted, but is implied: it is limited to notable actors, which for lists of this sort means those with a WP article, as this one has. A category and a list are complementary, and there is no reason to decide between them--the list in this case has the advantage of giving orientation and identification by indicating the dates.  The sourcing for such lists is taken to be the sourcing justifying the article, and errors on inclusion are dealt with by deleting the article.  Given that it seems to be well maintained, I don't see how it is unmaintanable--the evidence seems to be the exact opposite. Thus, no valid delete reason given, Listcruf is a word that one can use for any list, and some people do. Fortunately, the policy that lists and categories can both be used is pretty clear, and it would make more sense for those who do not approve of lists as a method of organization to remember that nobody is forced to read them or work on them. DGG (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — pretty evident that this is WP:LISTCRUFT. Simply too broad a list to be manageable. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 03:18, 7 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.  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. That it is unmanageable is at least an argument that can be directly disproven--look at the list. "Crappy" is harder to disprove, as it indicates no standard or criterion at all beyond IDONTLIKEIT  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)
 * Keep Meets WP:LIST. Notability is implied, hence why it doesn't need the word "notable" in the title.  As for the arguement of it being listcruft, ALL lists could fall under that inclusion to someone who knows nothing about the topic.  I look forward to future AfD's for List of monarchs of Korea, List of Naruto characters, List of peninsulas, List of J-pop artists and List of Batman animated episodes.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:The examples you give above have a finite number of possible entries. "Male actors" &mdash; notable or not &mdash; is a potentially infinite list that grows exponentially every time a film is released or a television series airs. I love lists, I have created some and I use lists and categories for navigation all the time; I'm just having a hard time imagining a scenario where this general a list would be useful.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, so I take it then you are going to nominate List of films: A (and all the other letters) for deletion too?  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As one of the main editors of List of Naruto characters, observe the rather large reception section. Learn what you're talking about before mindlessly shooting off random examples. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per items 3, 6, and 7 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:29, 9 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.