Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian film actors

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 per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian film actors[edit]

The article is an un-encyclopedic list with no practical chance of improvement. Thanks Shovon (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what's wrong with it. --Meldshal42 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that nearly all of the people on this list can be found under "Category:Indian actors", so the information won't necessarily be lost if the list is deleted. Show business in India is an encyclopedic topic, but where the list would be "wrong" under Wikipedia's rules is that it's an "indiscriminate list", meaning that there is almost no information on here to distinguish one entry on the list from the next. You won't know anything about Aamir Khan or Amol Pelakar from this article other than that they are on a list of Indian film actors. Generally, if a list has nothing to make it more useful than an existing category, it's hard to justify its continued existence. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect to Mandsford's views, I think that following this line of argument may result into deletion of probably many similar lists. --Bhadani (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but a "list" differes from a "category" in that a category groups existing pages. Lists can be created that do not necessarily link to an article. It is very likely that there are Indian actors who would be worthwhile to be listed but not deserving of an article all to themselves. I see added value in this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good list, and a category can't contain the redlinks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improve or Delete This is a nice list, but I really would wanna see descriptions for at least one of those actors. Keep in mind that lists are there to serve purpose that no category can, besides redlinks. If any of you can explain to me what this one can, I'd be more than happy to change my vote to keep. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and take a page out of the List of Harry Potter cast members book. It looks much nicer, it's organized, coherent and best of all...FEATURED! :D BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a list. We have thousands of them. "Unencyclopedic" isn't itself a deletion rationale, and there's nothing more of substance in the nomination. Mandsford has at least tried to make a case for deletion, but that argument (and that of TheBlazikenMaster) is contrary to the WP:CLS guideline. (See also the opinions of myself and others expressed at Wikipedia talk:Lists#Categories vs Lists). AndyJones (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, I had nominated this article (or a list) for AFD for two major reasons. These were (and still remains, so can be are) 1. The list does not make itself more informative than the category, Indian film actors and 2. The list is an indiscriminate one which gives the opportunity to all and sundry editors (be it IP or Vandals) to include their names in it. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To which the answers are: 1. WP:CLS is a guideline and covers this point thoroughly, as does the discussion I linked to. 2. It is not indiscriminate, it is a list of Indian Film Actors: clearly a notable and discriminate category of people. If that were not true we would have to delete the category also. The opportunity to add rubbish to an article is not a grounds to delete the article: this is a wiki, and the opportunity to vandalise is a feature of every article we have. AndyJones (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm hoping that fans of Indian film will take the opportunity to add more information to make this a better article, such as an example of a film or role that an actor is known for. I didn't vote for a "delete", because there is room for improvement. I didn't vote for "keep" either, since at the moment, it's not much of an article. Someone wrote, "I don't see what's wrong with it", and I'm hoping that that's a bid for ideas on improving the piece... rather than an attitude that it's perfect. A list has to have something to make it more useful than an existing category. It looks like the consensus will be to keep the article, so there will be plenty of chances to make this something good. Mandsford (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i dun see anything wrong with it too because it is instead helpful not to search again and again and then get to the profile of a certain actor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.147.38 (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You raise a good point, and one that's worth remembering in response to "a category is better" argument. Wikipedia is great, but a search will not take you to a category page. Why is that? I have no idea. It seems like it would be obvious, but the only way you would even reach a category page is if you happened to find one of the articles, notice on the bottom of the page that it's in a particular category, and then click on that link at the bottom of the page. So, 58.65, whoever you are, you've persuaded me. Thankx. Mandsford (talk) 15:04, 4 July 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.