Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankable star

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 of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bankable star

The article's entire content right now is "A bankable star is an actor famous or charismatic enough to be "capable of guaranteeing box-office success simply by showing up in a movie"." This is a Wiktionary entry, or dictionary definition. It has been in existence since October 27, 2005. There is a commented-out suggestion that the article become a list of "bankable stars", with an opposing argument that this would be difficult to keep from being original research. ~~I think that this is a perfectly good Wiktionary article, and so should be transwikied.~~ I am, of course, open to arguments that this article could become something other than a dict-def and it simply hasn't yet done so in a month. Jkelly 23:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC) I now vote Keep. User:Uncle G has proven my nomination short-sighted. Jkelly 07:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Please move it to wiktionary. Uncle Ed 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If a list of bankable stars as reported from particular sources (respected movie magazines, earnings, etc) was added — not as a definitive list, but as "Magazine A stated that X was a bankable star in such-&-such an issue. Film magazine B rated Y in such-&-such, with a sourced list (a rarely on WP) then it might work. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Unc Ed. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC) keep per Willmcw Ben Aveling 08:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move. A very nice dictionary definition. -Willmcw 01:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)~~ remove my vote - the article has grown beyond a definition. -Willmcw 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary, per above. Not bad as dicdefs go, but still a dicdef. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then, per Cryptic. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; do not transwiki. Non-idiomatic phrase; the meaning is exactly what one would expect from the meanings of "bankable" and "star". See wikt:WS:CFI#Idiomaticity. —Cryptic (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it relies on the idiomatic meaning of Bankable? I can't instantly think of anything else being described as bankable in quite the same way. Ben Aveling 08:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jtdirl is right. The HTML comment was wrong. Keep. Uncle G 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could possibly be expanded to have a list of actors considered to be bankable stars, based on objective measures as openings; however a strong potential for abuse as a vandalism-magnet and for editwarring. Hence, delete. --Gurubrahma 07:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is basically an article about a survey. Does the term have any meaning outside of the survey? If so, make it a wikitonary entry. Sethie 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Sethie has a point. The article is called Bankable Star, which would make a good wiktionary entry. It currently contains a List of top 10 Bankable Stars, which is a slightly different thing. A potentially valid page, but subject to all the comments that have been made already. Ben Aveling 02:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per cryptic - Hahnchen 05:03, 7 December 2005 (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.