- 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. Consensus is now clear. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of actors who have played animated characters
- List of actors who have played animated characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:N and a pointless trivia list. Per original prod by User:RadioFan, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Prod removed by article creator without reason. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It looks to me as if this list is seeking to break down voice actors by character rather than by name. It may not be redundant to List of voice actors, but the information contained on it might be better preserved under the character names than as a large list. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Irretrievably fails WP:NOTDIR, probably runs afoul of WP:N, and abrades WP:BIO. —Scheinwerfermann T·C16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I just don't see any relevance or why anyone would care... it's almost like this is someone's "Garage band" but it's their "wikipedia project" ... ???? give me some notability assertion, use, or something.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A legitimate list. If you want to know this information, this is a good list to see, it linking to the movies and actors and series, all of which have wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 23:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — "I like it" is not a valid basis for keeping a noncompliant article. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It don't like nor dislike it, not caring about the subject matter at all. But it is a perfectly reasonable list to have in an encyclopedia. You could also have a list for actors who became elected officials, or Harvard graduates that became president of the United States of America. Dream Focus 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be precise, that's WP:USEFUL, not WP:LIKE. And they are arguments to avoid, not arguments that are not valid.
- Response It don't like nor dislike it, not caring about the subject matter at all. But it is a perfectly reasonable list to have in an encyclopedia. You could also have a list for actors who became elected officials, or Harvard graduates that became president of the United States of America. Dream Focus 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — "I like it" is not a valid basis for keeping a noncompliant article. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATA: "Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is interesting, and the arguments for "interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay."
- If we're keeping track, I see here in this thing I just wrote that when it comes to looking at the content of arguments, a WP:USEFUL is worth 1.347 LIKEs/WP:IDLs and a wopping 1.782 WP:ITSCRUFTs, if only .304 DITTOs, and .287 WP:VAGUEWAVEs. Don't bite the noobs. Most of the folks here are permanoobs. At least the newcomers still have a chance of turning into real editors some day. Anarchangel (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorize all actors into Category:Voice actors and Delete per nominator. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps then a new category... because there are more voice actors who have never been themselves in front of a camera, and more actors who have never provided voices for animation. This list or new category shows where the two fields meet. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Acceptable list--I dod not see what the list is noncompliant with--this is not indiscriminate since it refers only to notable fictions. If it referred to all such animated characters even in work not notable enough for Wikipedia , then, and only then, would it be indiscriminate. Brings together Wikipedia content for the sake of navigation (One person's trivia is another's important content) . Browsing is one of the key functions of any encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another inaccurate interpretation of the IINFO guideline. The problem is not that this list does not have discriminate inclusion criteria; the problem is that Wikipedia is not to indiscriminately include any and all lists of information. (In other words, IINFO does not say "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information"; it says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".) Powers T 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's essentially trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia should not include just any old list of information, even if it has well-defined inclusion criteria. Powers T 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The list is not trivia nor an indiscriminate collection of information, as it serves as a navigation aid that serves to improve the project... one that meets the criteria of WP:STAND as it is based on reliable sources. Should the nom wish the numerous references be brought over from the 12 listed articles, fine... but that is a matter for cleanup and not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic itself is not notable. If people want to read cast lists of movies based on animation properties, the appropriate place to do that is at the seperate articles. This is akin to making a list called "List of actors who have played judges". WesleyDodds (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If your List of actors who have played judges could be sourced just the folks in this list can be, and met the guidelines of WP:STAND, it would be welcome. Your solution of repeating the information in the 12 seperate articles would have readers not know that these 12 had a common link, and does not improve the project. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can source a list like this, but it doesn't mean it should exist. As I stated, these cast lists belong in the film articles. This is just poor organization. You don't need a list article on this topic, because the relationship between these topics is trival. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With a set criteria for inclusion, the list is not trivial. If I wanted to find out which actors have played animated characters, are you then suggesting I scour their articles to see if perhaps they have done so? Or that I scour the various film articles to see? Sorry, but that's not very efficient. As a simple and effective navigation aid, and one that meets WP:STAND, the article improves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to wanted to find out which actors have played animated characters, the questions is why? Are you looking for actors who played particular actors? Or are you just curious about actors in general who played animated characters? Because for the former, you'd go to specific character or film article. For the latter, well, there's no reason such a list to accomodate this should necessarily exist in the first place, because it's just a broad topic. As I stated before, it's like expecting to find a list of actors who played judges. It doesn't illuminate anything for the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A discriminate list of actors who have played animated characters quite nicely illuminates its content, just as would your hypothesized list of actors who have played judges. Why does anybody use Wikipedia? Curiosity? Research? Fun? Who cares and why does it even matter to this discusion? I am not going to even attempt to get into the heads and reasonings of hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia users. Their reasons are their own. However, making use of Wikipedia easier for readers greatly improves the project. And as stated numerous times above, the discriminate list meets WP:STAND. A more cogent question is why would anyone want to make Wikipedia more difficult to use? Why would anyone demand to know why anyone reads these pages? Anyone wishing to know what actors may have played animated characters would type in that search and discover just who has done so. I am not going to sit in judgement and decide that readers must search though hundreds of other articles to find the information contained in this one guideline supported list. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to wanted to find out which actors have played animated characters, the questions is why? Are you looking for actors who played particular actors? Or are you just curious about actors in general who played animated characters? Because for the former, you'd go to specific character or film article. For the latter, well, there's no reason such a list to accomodate this should necessarily exist in the first place, because it's just a broad topic. As I stated before, it's like expecting to find a list of actors who played judges. It doesn't illuminate anything for the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With a set criteria for inclusion, the list is not trivial. If I wanted to find out which actors have played animated characters, are you then suggesting I scour their articles to see if perhaps they have done so? Or that I scour the various film articles to see? Sorry, but that's not very efficient. As a simple and effective navigation aid, and one that meets WP:STAND, the article improves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can source a list like this, but it doesn't mean it should exist. As I stated, these cast lists belong in the film articles. This is just poor organization. You don't need a list article on this topic, because the relationship between these topics is trival. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If your List of actors who have played judges could be sourced just the folks in this list can be, and met the guidelines of WP:STAND, it would be welcome. Your solution of repeating the information in the 12 seperate articles would have readers not know that these 12 had a common link, and does not improve the project. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A very clear failure of WP:NOT in that the list is indiscriminate information and a repository of loosely associated topics. --Farix (Talk) 16:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is discriminate, and useful for navigation. Maybe could use a better name. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That the list is discriminate is irrelevant; see my note above about IINFO. Powers T 15:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep pointing to the disputed WP:IINFO. In reading it, it is easy to see that the list is not a plot-only description, the list is not a lyric database, the list it is not an excessively long list of statistics, the list is not a news report. So even were it not disputed, WP:IINFO does not apply. However the undisputed WP:STAND does apply and the list meets inclusion criteria. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That the list is discriminate is irrelevant; see my note above about IINFO. Powers T 15:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOTDIR Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDIR says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic ". The actors in this list "are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". As such, the list passes WP:NOTDIR. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, many movies start out life in other media. This include fairytales, books, plays, comic books, games (Red Queen), video games, older movies and animated series. What these things have in common is that they spring from the human imagination. A list of movies that started out as animated series wouldn't bother me much, although I would prefer a category, but this goes too far. I say delete as a violation of WP:Synthesis. Abductive (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:STAND. WP:DIR fails under point 1. WP:IINFO contains four key WP rules: A diversion of enthusiastic plot writers to more encyclopaedic content at the cost of allowing deletionists free rein to query anything with a plot summary in it, WP:COPYVIO (no argument there, other than why a reiteration is required), an IDL about any statistics other than for presidential elections, and WP:RECENTISM, which is an essay. No wonder it is disputed. Can you tell us, LtPowers, in your own words of course, I am not requiring you to argue in terms of my framing of my argument, what it is in or about WP:IINFO that you find relevant to this article? Abductive: a long road, but the journey was mostly in a carriage marked WP:IDL. That the destination turned out to be WP:SYNTH I find inexplicable. Care to elaborate? Anarchangel (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was getting at by saying WP:Synthesis is that the outside world does not make such lists or distinctions. Actors are categorized in a lot of different ways, such as the Rat Pack. What I look for is reliable sources that think a category is interesting. For example, if somebody made a list of actors who started out as stand-up comedians, I would say that since various critics have noted that this is a path to stardom, such a list would be ok. Abductive (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, Anarchangel, the list of examples at WP:IINFO is not exhaustive. The examples are merely that -- examples. Specifically, the guideline says that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." When someone invokes IINFO, what they're saying is that "even though this list may be accurate, it is still not encyclopedic information, because it's too specific or too trivial." Powers T 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Reopened per User talk:King of Hearts#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who have played animated characters. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, indiscriminate and pointless list. JIP | Talk 09:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a defining feature - Wikipedia is not a directory. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At first I thought it was a list of actors who did voice acting, but this is even worse. --Conti|✉ 14:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Category:Live-action films based on cartoons and List of live-action films based on cartoons and comics already contain dozens of titles and are far from being complete. Aside from missing US and European movie entries (e.g. G.I. Joe (film)), there are also innumerable Japanese live-action adaptations of popular anime/manga series[1]. The inclusion criterion covers hundreds if not thousands of loosely associated actors, which makes the list virtually unmaintainable and practically useless. I think this falls under WP:NOTDIR, subsections 1 and 6. — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A clearly pointless list, imo. Barras (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.