Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by film title)

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. There are already too many lists. We don't need new list pages created for each and every sorting pattern. seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by film title)[edit]

I mean really. Two lists for the same purpose divided by film? We have this thing called 'defaultsort' that would probably be more useful. Ironholds (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean sortable tables... :) - Mgm|^(talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

~~So merge them. I fail to see the problem here.~~ JulesH (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the content is already present here, just in a slightly different format. There is nothing mergeable. Ironholds (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. In that case delete. JulesH (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've merged the two AfD discussions. No need to discuss these lists twice. PC78 (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Redundant duplication of Academy Award for Best Actress. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging the lists and turning them into sortable tables means it can provide functionality the information in the article can't. If there is a decision to include it in the article, both list titles are best redirected there. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are intended to provide a way for people typing in a common term/misspelling/whatnot to get to the correct page. Why would anyone search for 'List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by film title)'? Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Providing useful search terms is not the only purpose of redirects—they also provide a target for old links (both internal and external) to avoid breaking them, to provide useful information where someone might have expected to find it (e.g. in a saved bookmark or from a stale search result), and to preserve edit history for GFDL compliance. We generally don't delete redirects unless they are harmful in some way. DHowell (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lists and retitle "List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress". Do the actress/title sorting in the article itself. 2 seperate lists with the same information simply arranged differently is a bit redundent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article already exists, redundancy. A different way of sorting is no reason to create several new lists. Phil153 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge to a sortable table in the main article. Redundancy has never been a valid reason to delete an article according to deletion policy. One of the purposes of lists is for navigation, and having multiple lists to allow navigation of the same information in different ways has been a long-accepted practice, and at one time in the past having multiple lists was the only way to achieve this, before the sortable list feature was enabled. DHowell (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect - sortable tables exist; an editor's inability or unwillingness to implement them is no excuse to create redundant lists. Redundancy in the sense of repeating particular pieces of information is certainly valuable to an encyclopedia, but redundant articles are not. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to sortable tables. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote a small program to parse the text of these and turn them into sortable tables; my attempt is at List_of_nominees_for_the_Academy_Award_for_Best_Actress_(by_actress) here. If this is suitable (I'm new at this) I'll do it with the others so they can be deleted. I'm not sure where the final sortable table should go however, maybe at Academy_Award_for_Best_Actress? Or should we keep a single seperate article for each of the sortable lists? Thanks for any assistance. Phil153 (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - I think that the winners should possbily be seperate from the main article, but having five seprate lists is excessive and would be redundant to one sortable table at List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2009 (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.