Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of persons who have won Academy, Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild, and BAFTA Awards


 * 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.  Singu larity  06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

List of persons who have won Academy, Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild, and BAFTA Awards

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a replication of several list that already exist.Aiden Fisher (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Overly narrow criteria for inclusion -- how many people have won Academy, Golden Globe, SAG but not BAFTA? Or Academy, SAG and BAFTA but not Golden Globe? Etc. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. — BradV 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete - i think its fine, and theres no problem with it being there, its an interesting fact, and other people might like it too. i see no problem Tristan 753 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete If you're so keen why dont you just view each of the seperate lists? Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 03:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should you have to? Celarnor Talk to me 09:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, arbitrary synthesis. Why not the César Award or the Edda Award for that matter? --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not create them? The only way this is synthesis is that there aren't other versions of it.  Creating them solves the problem better than deletion, as we don't lose coalition of information.  Celarnor Talk to me  09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable intersection of award winners. See categories. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 10:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it seems to be an okay list and the criteria for inclusion is clear. People complaining about the list criteria are free to make their own lists. The list fulfills its purpose of information and navigation. I don't think this information could be obtained by using the Category Intersect tool, since that only finds overlaps between two categories, I don't see any SAG categories, and many of the other award categories are very specific. Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial. I don't think this falls under "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" from WP:NOT because these four awards are fairly significant in the film profession. It's certainly a big achievement to win all four of them. And this kind of information is perfect if Jimbo ever starts selling Wikipedia-brand trivia games. --Pixelface (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I have a general distate for lists in general. And this one is no exception. The critria for inclusion is compeltely arbitrary. Are they related topics? Absolutely. Should they be chosen randomly and put into a list? Not so much. -- Cyrus      Andiron   17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per TenPound, Dhartung. Arbitrary synthesis. Noroton (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it seems interesting and good enough to me. The part it fails on is references. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not a popularity contest. Articles are not saved simply because they are interesting. -- Cyrus      Andiron   20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. In the absence of a reliable source ... (pauses to listen to crickets chirping)... stating that winning all four of these awards has some significance (e.g. calling them "the Big Four"), choosing to list the intersection of the four sets of award winners is a quite arbitrary decision, and I think it constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources that the people have won awards should be listed on the articles of those people, not within the list itself. If there are people without such references or without articles, they should be removed from it.


 * Keep. The synthesis argument is invalid, as any bold editor could create articles with the combination of awards (i.e, List of persons who have won Academy and Golden Globe Awards).  That is an improvement argument, not a deletion argument.  However, the statement that it is the "big four" should be removed unless a citation can be found.  Again, though, that's an improvement argument, not a deletion argument.  AfD is not cleanup. Celarnor Talk to me  09:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my post was unclear. There is no source calling these "the Big Four". That's why this is an arbitrary combination of otherwise unrelated facts. Look at it this way: whose idea was it to list these things together? If a secondary source, then we have an encyclopaedic article. If an author, then we have WP:OR or WP:SYN, depending on whether reliable sources back up the indivudal bits of information. It's true that any bold editor could create a list of any logical combiantion of bits of information. That's no argument for keeping such articles. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 13:17, 2 April 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.