Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who have played comic book characters

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played comic book characters[edit]

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

Also nominated

Completely unsourced. Even if it was sourced, it is too broad of a list, and it will be too long and is simply trivia. JDDJS (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every movie or TV show has an article which should establish the comic book origin and the cast. I don't see a reason in WP policy why we shouldn't have this list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lists are useful and I don't agree that the criteria are too broad. Nom claims that the list will be too long; however currently the list isn't too long, and if it becomes so in the future then it could be split. The claim that it is trivia sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As far as sourcing goes, most of the entries in the list link to WP articles that do have sources. I don't see the need to duplicate all of these sources in the list article itself. CodeTheorist (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being too long is not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one and the other two "Lists of actors who have played...". This is the very definition of WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." We could have "lists of actors who have played..." for all kinds of things -- characters of particular ethnicities, religions, abilities/disabilities, geographic locations, habits, collections, types of houses, professions, politics, philosophical bents, heights, hair colors ... origins in short stories, 19th century novels, musings of drunkards, and so forth. To have a list we should have some reason for the list, some uniformity of subject and some reason that this list should exist. The statement by User:CodeTheorist that "[t]he lists are useful" is simply an assertion without any explanation or supporting rationale. Are they useful? If so to whom and how? This is not going to be a subject of academic inquiry. No high schooler is going to write a report and need Wikipedia to cover this topic. Who would use it? Ah, players of Trivial Pursuit ... hence, WP:TRIVIA. --Lquilter (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list is useful to anyone who is interested in both comic books and films (which is probably quite a large number of people). WP:TRIVIA doesn't apply because the list is selective rather than a random collection of unconnected facts: "a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia"; the selection criteria are clear and unambiguous. Wikipedia isn't just for academics, it is permitted to write articles on popular culture. I couldn't find anything in the notability or list guidelines that would disallow this list, but if you can find something then please add a comment and I'll change my !vote. CodeTheorist (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttals to minor points: (1) The list is certainly not useful to anyone interested in both comic books & films, e.g., me -- reading comics since I was 10 (that's several decades now) and a fan of comics-in-film. (2) We have plenty of pop culture articles (and indeed plenty of academic studies on pop culture), and I'm not suggesting they're inappropriate as a category, so let's not try to impugn the argument with reverse snobbery or implications of academic elitism.
More substantively, (1) You say the list is "selective rather than a random collection of unconnected facts". The facts are not of course a random collection of unconnected facts -- there is a list theme and I'm not denying it -- but there is nothing in the list that says it is "selectively populated"; the title suggests comprehensive inclusion, and there's no particular guidance as to how to populate the list -- i.e., "award-winning" or "most popular" or "most cited" or "best-selling".
And (2) you have still failed to explain why this particular topic, "actors who have played comic book characters", is relevant rather than, say, "actors who have played musicians", "actors who have played historical figures", "actors who have played ...". Actors by type of role opens up a very, very broad -- I should say infinite -- number of possible lists. Why, then, should we have this particular list? Is it generally defining to those actors? (No -- occasionally, i.e., Christopher Reeve as Superman -- but not generally.) So what is the reason? Please have something more than "it's useful", because every piece of information can be hypothetically useful. If you can demonstrate actual uses -- as in references to this or similar lists in news and scholarship, suggesting that it's a real topic -- then we can get somewhere. --Lquilter (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I refer folks to Category:Lists of actors by role, which is currently populated with 14 lists. Five of them cover very specific characters (James Bond, Santa Claus, Elvis Presley, Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes); two very specific groups of characters (US presidents, X-Men). Two cover guest stars on TV shows. Two cover special types of acting situations -- multiple roles in the same film or TV series. Then we have the three nominated for deletion here -- actors who have played animated characters, comic book characters, or video game characters. I submit that these are precedential for a new type of actors-by-role lists: actors by source of role. If we go with this precedent, we can have "actors who played short story characters", "actors who played anime characters", "actors who played novel characters", "actors who played radio telenovella characters", "actors who played vaudeville characters", "actors who played shakespearean roles", "actors who played biblical characters", "actors who played religious text characters", "actors who played theatrical characters", etc., etc. There is no limiting factor here besides individual user's interest -- again, the definition of WP:TRIVIA. Because I can sit at home and in my idle time make lots and lots of lists -- it's what fans do. But it has to be more than of fannish interest to be of encyclopedic interest. --Lquilter (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexed: perhaps categories would make more sense in this types of cases. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the standard for creating categories is, if anything, higher than the standard to be met for noting something in an article or including in a list. Inclusion in an article requires a reliable source, NPOV, some significance to the subject. Creation of a category and inclusion of something within that category requires the category to be notably defining -- e.g., we all have millions of attributes and facts that are true, but Wikipedia only categorizes based on a select few attributes and facts: those that are notable and defining. Inclusion within a list is the lowest standard -- it only requires reliable sourcing -- but to actually create the list, the list itself must be notable. Indeed, this is the kind of attribute that would be better handled in a list than a category -- if the list were notable. But that's what I'm arguing here: That this list is not notable. --Lquilter (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all 3 and make categories also. It is almost always the case that when either a list or category is justified, so is the other--they play complementary roles (Though in these cases, the lists would be more useful because they can include additional information, such as the name and link to the character, and the name of the film or play.) The only real difference is that categories often get deleted because very few people pay attention to CfD. The limiting factor, as always , is the limitation to notable subjects. In this case, of notable actors -- and notable comic book characters, or at least major characters in notable comic books (and analogously for video games & animations). This makes it non-trivial and not indiscriminate--no group limited to those who are notable is indiscriminate , and the intersection of two notable groups is certainly non-trivial. I note Lquilter's suggestions, and propose that someone interested and patient enough make the other corresponding lists and categories. As I explained, of the two, the lists would be the more useful, but making the categories is easier. That one can sit at home and make many interesting and useful lists as navigational devices shows not that doing so is worthless, but rather that Wikipedia is in need of more such. The criteria for navigational devices includes usefulness. (But I think with a little effort we could find books & articles discussing these groups specifically) DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, are we seriously going to start categorizing actors by the kinds of roles they have played? You do realize that this will set a precedent that will create an infinity of categories ... --Lquilter (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2012 (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.