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. (non-admin closure) Ashleyyoursmile! 05:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional actors[edit]

List of fictional actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional actors have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless some sources discussing the topic of "fictional actors" can be found, this is unnecessary. I know there's some guideline that says it's fine to double up on categories and lists, but it also says it's up to user discretion if we actually do it. This is a case where the category is fundamentally superior in every way. If this is kept, it definitely needs to be cut down to only characters that actually have articles to remove the junk. TTN (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Fictional actors. No need for "cultural impact" to be demonstrated, and we are listing article subjects by what they are. Note the nom copy and pasted the same boilerplate into at least eight separate nominations, all made at the same time. In response to TTN, whether it only includes standalone articles or not is a matter of normal editing and discussion to resolve; regardless there are clearly plenty of articles to list. Even notwithstanding WP:NOTDUP, the list can be (and has been) annotated with what work(s) the character is featured in, time period, etc., so it is already demonstrating a function that the category cannot perform. We really need a compelling reason not to permit a list where we have a category ("discretion" without that turns into IDONTLIKEIT), and none have been presented. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The current list proves unmanageable and useless for navigation. Even with stricter standards and careful eyes on it, it'll always be a cesspit of people adding random "important" characters that do not have articles. Compared to the management of lists dealing with real people, they are infinitely easier to manage because it's simply a case of blue links and red links. That would be my criteria as to why it's unsuitable for a CLN list. I don't believe your proposed data points are particularly meaningful when it comes to the management of fictional characters that share a very narrow connection (which honestly only exists in the first place due to not wanting to mix reality and fiction, not that "fictional actors" are in any way actually separately important as a topic). TTN (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The play within a play is a Shakespearean device in works such as Hamlet and A Midsummer Night's Dream and this naturally attract critical attention and consideration of the fictional actors such as Nick Bottom. And there are lots of famous movies in which Hollywood refers back to itself: Sunset Boulevard and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. See The Rise Of Self Referential Cinema for some cultural impact. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. For a prose article like that, we want WP:Reliable sources with in-depth discussion of fictional actors as a group. My WP:BEFORE search turned up surprisingly few such sources, but it did at least lead me to this source: Esslin, Martin (1987). "Actors Acting Actors". Modern Drama. 30 (1): 72–79. doi:10.1353/mdr.1987.0044. ISSN 1712-5286. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable topic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional actors, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think, especially as this is a second nomination, that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, it's possible it needs triming, but I do not think that it is unmanageable. And "needs improvement" is not a reason for deletion.

For the first point, "fictional actors" is clearly delineated, and as there are a number of blue links in the list, it is something that does appear on Wikipedia and is therefore not trivial.

For the second, the fact that eight such lists were nominated within minutes makes it highly doubtful that the nominator did a proper WP:BEFORE search, which is part of the normal AfD process. As found above, the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.

As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself also has its uses. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2021 (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.