Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees


 * 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. (non-admin closure) B  music  ian  06:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is trivial. Age isn't related to ability to appear on film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Extensive media coverage of oldest  and youngest Oscar winners shows that these intersections are notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see anything wrong with this article  Jay Jay Talk to me 03:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I strongly oppose this proposed deletion. These are milestones that are routinely reported by the media in reliable sources.  In fact, the Academy itself (AMPAS) — the most reliable of any source, in this particular subject — keeps a running log of this information at their official website.  The age statistics are continually reported, sourced, maintained, and updated by the Academy.  Also, contrary to the comment made by Justin (koavf) above ... age is indeed pertinent when it comes to winning an Academy Award (and, thus, by extension, when it comes to performing in a film).  Winning an Academy Award is the highest honor that an actor can achieve ... and it is very notable (to say the least).  Thus, being the oldest person or the youngest person to do so ... is that much more notable!  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Keep- The nomination is not a reason for deletion. Bzweebl (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It is trivial, but it does have plenty of real-world coverage. As a side note, the year column should really link to the ceremony, and not the year in film.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done It does now! :) For An Angel (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice one!  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whether a list is trivial -- the gravamen of the complaint -- will necessarily always be subjective.  But here we have some objective data that belies that description -- 19,000 views in the last month.  And, as indicated above, it is something the RS media focuses on.  A good example of why -- however heart-felt our own feelings may be -- we have to look for objective indicia in matters such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: If people want to find out this information (and it's pretty clear that they do), it should be kept  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as no one but nominator is saying to delete and besides "trivial" is subjective. --WR Reader (talk) 23:45, 23 February 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.