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 | talk | contribs 22:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of character actors[edit]

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, as the majority of actors in the world should be on it. Entry on the list is subjective, and as it stands now the list is completely unsourced. — TAnthony^Talk 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A noble thought, but 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_←T 08:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 most notable character role. No valid delete reason given. 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. If the question is whether a given actor is a character actor, then the us of the category is an editing decision for that article's talk page. DGG (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:My issue isn't notability per se, because anyone with a Wikipedia article would pass that test. The thing is, the criteria for inclusion on this list basically apply every actor who isn't a "star," which to me seems like a potentially infinite and unmanageable list of names. In addition, who decides who is a "character actor?" Sources would be required because it's a subjective/arbitrary designation (and I have certainly seen articles or writeups which say "and a standout performance by veteran character actor so-and-so"). Otherwise it's POV, akin to List of actors Oprah Winfrey says are her friends. — TAnthony^Talk 14:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per items 3, 4, 7, and 9 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcraft. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, echoing points raised by Le Grand Roi, above. Lists and categories obviously coexist on WP. It is not clear how this list is "unlimited" compared to the hundreds of others out there. The fact that people may debate who should or should not be included does not negate the value of the information. Quill (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep just those names where a citation is provided... oh, look, that's none of them! Delete. Bondegezou (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.