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. Michig (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not for original research and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a collection of trivia, which in itself is sufficient for deletion IMHO, but by compiling the data the list asserts an original thesis, that the presence of these actors contributed to the winning of the Best Picture Oscar. Now in some cases that is likely true, but the list also captures people like Irving Bacon, whose roles as "Corporal" in Gone With the Wind, "Gas Station Attendant" (uncredited) in It Happened One Night and "Henry - The Head Waiter" in You Can't Take It With You, while I'm sure were super, were not likely uppermost in Academy voters' minds when casting their ballots those years. In the absence of reliable sources that support the thesis of the list it should be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a list of over 130 notable actors who have a notable accomplishment. Extracting list information from readily available reliable sources is not "original" research. Performance in Academy Award winning films, especially Best Picture, isn't considered "trivia", and is commonly mentioned in biographical coverage of an actor's career. There is no thesis advanced that these actors were decisive in the Best Picture win. It would have been nice to have informed TheLastAmigo, who has spent seven years diligently maintaining this list, of this deletion nomination. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff and nonsense. The original research is not that they appeared in the films and I said so in the nomination. And either there is a thesis advanced, in which case the list is OR, or there isn't, in which case it's indiscriminate trivia. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I started this list 7 years ago, I did so because there was no other list like it of its kind, and it was born out of the records section of the actual Academy Awards page. I never advanced any sort of thesis that each of these actors helped propel a film to a Best Picture win, just that they were in said Best Picture winners. This is not a mere list of trivia, but a listing of actual Academy Awards-related records. Appearing in multiple Best Picture winners is a rare occurrence and not a feat that most actors can claim to have accomplished. And if you look beyond the list, you will also see that the scope goes beyond the actors and includes directors, producers, cinematographers, film editors, etc. Perhaps we can change the name of the article to something else, but the page is notable enough to warrant keeping. Furthermore, I don't appreciate you referring to my 7 years of hard work on this article as "stuff and nonsense". That is very rude. TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So trivial, it's only got a blog for a reference. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the relevant guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE:
A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:
The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.

The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

Keep per the preceding read and understood. While I can understand the nominator's convern that simply being an actor who has appeared in multiple award-winning films is not in an of itself notable, in looking to the applicable guideline, we have two points to consider:

The list consists only of blue-linked (already notable) actors and simply strives to present a list for our readers showing how many "Best Picture films" they have appeared in, and
While many minor actors "could" meet this list, they are not on it, as it has set criteria for inclusion, and is thus specific and not indiscriminate.

My conclusions per guidelines's instruction: As each of the bluelinked persons within this list are themselves eminently sourced, WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTPURP are clearly met. Perhaps a name-change could assuage... ie: List of notable actors who have appeared in multiple films which have won Academy Awards for Best Picture... but really... a too-long name is itself a dis-service. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only inclusion criterion for this list is that an actor has appeared in at least two films that won Best Picture. This supposed exclusionary criterion you're claiming does not exist. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... the inclusion criteria for such lists already exists at WP:LISTPEOPLE. The "exclusionary criterion" is when someone does not meet that existing guideline. Please review WP:LISTPURP to see that the collected names serve the exact purpose set in that criteria. But if you truely feel the article's lead requires a redundant restating of WP:LISTPEOPLE, then it can be added. Never really a need to delete what can be addressed with just the smallest bit of editing. Though with a bit of thought I do not see why all list articles within these pages must now need explain exclusionary criteria. How much thought is required to determine that a Cheshire cat does not belong in a list on igneous rocks?... or why a redlinked name does not always (but could) belong in a list of blue-linked? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is far more exclusionary than List of Academy Award-winning films, in which the only criteria is that the film had to have won an Academy Award. Any Academy Award will do. TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is not just random trivia, but something that is actually relevant to people who follow the Academy Awards. These are actual pertinent Academy Awards records of interest to many people, and is even prominently linked on the main article for the Academy Awards. Furthermore, I have seen this list cited in non-Wikipedia articles pertaining to the Academy Awards and it has even been linked to some of the articles for the actors... some of which, like Franklyn Farnum and Bess Flowers, who appeared in 7 and 5 Best Picture winners, is their major claim to fame. If you're going to go after this list, then why not go after other trivial lists such as List of people who have been pied, which has been nominated for deletion 4 times and been upheld each and every time? Furthermore, it is no more trivial than any other Academy Awards-related lists, such as List of Academy Award-winning families or List of Academy Award trophies on public display. The list has been around for 7 years and no one has ever had a problem with its existence until now. The fact that the article has had 5,637 individual page views in the last 90 days proves that it is also an article that is of interest to many people. If you want me to include citations, I would be happy to go in and do it. TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP - This article has been around a very long time; its subject matter is (without dispute) notable. Clearly, the Academy Awards are the highest honor in the film industry, not only in the USA, but probably worldwide as well. And, clearly, the "Best Picture" Oscar is the highest award that a film can receive. To be a cast member of multiple Best Picture winners is no small feat. It is clearly notable. The list itself has approximately 130 actors ... from a field of how many thousands upon thousands upon thousands of actors over the years (since 1928). Clearly, these 130 individuals have achieved a rare – and notable – feat. Furthermore, the nominator makes a huge assumption – and quite a leap – when he asserts that "by compiling the data the list asserts an original thesis, that the presence of these actors contributed to the winning of the Best Picture Oscar". Where does the article posit such a thesis? The nominator has made that up, out of whole cloth. There is no reason to nominate this article for deletion, much less to delete it. Strong KEEP. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide verifiable and notable information in a neutral way. This article meets that purpose. All the policies are nothing more than guidelines to help us reach that goal. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The guidelines that have been referenced so far are only Manual of Style guidelines (WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTPURP) that do not provide direct guidance about the notability of the list itself. The notability guideline to look at here are WP:NOTESAL. The first paragraph states, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." This basically states that for a list to be notable, there need to have been secondary sources listing actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. However, the second paragraph recognizes the possibility of "complex and cross-categorization lists" to justify lists like this one. (We are criss-crossing a list of actors with a list of Academy award winners.) I would like to see secondary sources validate this list topic to help reflect that the list is useful. My concern with this list is that the circumstances are rather happenstance, that an actor (regardless of role prominence) happened to be in the right films. For example, the largest numbers seem to mostly correlate with old or deceased actors, suggesting to me that the more films in which an actor appears, the more likely they will have been cast (especially as opposed to starring) in an Academy Award winner. Ben Affleck with a count of 2 could have a count of 7 by the end of his acting career, for all we know. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No new arguments, but I strongly support all the above Keeps. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:50, 3 January 2014 (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.