Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of richest actors


 * 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. Mr.Z-man 03:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

List of richest actors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reprinting a list taken from a questionable source. Trivialist (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (confer)  @ 21:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (jive)  @ 21:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment to base it on a single source may be a WP:COPYVIO. However there are richer actors than those in this list. Bill Gates worth billions. Elizabeth II has a personal wealth of $450M and runs crown estates worth billions. Richard Branson worth $5billion. Martin 4 5 1  23:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the list is about actors in the dramatic sense. Trivialist (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Branson has appeared in many films and TV shows, often as cameo appearances, so should qualify as an actor. A quick search brings up several lists. . However they don't agree with each other, or the list here. The first includes the actresses Dina Merrill worth an estimated $5billion, and an Oscar nominee for best supporting actress, Oprah Winfrey. This list names Mel Gibson as the richest, and William Shatner as number two, neither appear on the article. Martin 4 5 1  17:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * DELETE This is relying on a very wierd 'hollywood+bollywood' list which indicates that this list is compiled for commercial reasons and there are reasons to doubt its veracity. Delete is what I'd say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.200.137 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google search "top actors net wealth" yields multiple sources on topic.  Sure, reduce reliance on just the one source used so far.  And for an encyclopedia article, covering past wealthiest actors also relevant.  But topic is wikipedia-notable. -- do  ncr  am  06:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could list a few reliable sources that you found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep – Passes WP:LISTN because the topic has been covered as a group/set by reliable sources. Source examples include: ABC News, Variety, Fox News Magazine. Also passes WP:NLIST and WP:LSC. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - Every one of the sources linked above in turn cites the same source: Wealth-X. This is still a single-source list with material taken entirely from Wealth-X (a subset of their database of high net worth individuals sorted this time by a particular profession) -- the reliability of which hinges on it being picked up as a listicle by mainstream sources. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 20:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As-is the sourcing is single and terrible. If a much better source can be found this might be able to be kept, but we have no idea how the numbers came in, and the Wealth-X source pretty much makes clear their numbers are a big fat WP:ADVERT to recruit high-wealth individuals to utilize their services; a more neutral source is sorely needed.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * delete news trivia - Nabla (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2015 (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.