Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of telenovela 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. A category is the correct method of maintaining this otherwise unmanageable list. List is completely unsourced and subjective. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List of telenovela actors

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, and most individual soap operas have their own expansive historical cast lists. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  02:56, 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 08:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm getting tired just agreeing with poor TAnthony, who had to file all these nominations. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:31, 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 countries.  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. "poor TA" did not have to file these nominations. DGG (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As far as notability goes, there are a LOT of red links on this list. And maintainable? Do you have any idea how many novelas there are/have been? This list is far from complete, and I don't believe it ever could be. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per items 3, 8, 9, and 10 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Do not call things cruft. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:30, 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.