Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stage names

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. —fetch ·comms 01:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of stage names[edit]

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

Almost every actor, singer, etc. has used a stage name at some point. Absolutely no criterion for inclusion, very much indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no criterion for inclusion is untrue.

The criteria (not issued by me) are clearly stated at the beginning of the article.

Almost every actor, singer, etc. has used a stage name at some point.

We have no way to know if this is/is not true as it is an unsourced personal assertion. I personally doubt it but I might be wrong.

Otters want attention hasn't made any suggestions for improving or making the list, into which a great deal of thought and effort by Wikipedians have gone, more exclusive or less exhaustive. There is nothing unencyclopaedic about the list, and it is informative. In the interest of full disclosure I admit to having made numerous contributions. [email protected] (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made no suggestions for improvement because I don't see how it could be improved. No matter what you do, it's still huge and indiscriminate. Also see WP:EFFORT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I read WP:EFFORT. I knew that my comment "into which a great deal of thought and effort by Wikipedians have gone" wasn't a winning argument, nor was it meant to be. It was just a fact to point out. If the article can't be improved perhaps that's because -- the "hugeness" of the list notwithstanding (it is not indiscriminate as I have established) -- the list is fine as it is. Actually I do have a suggestion: musicians/music-related names could be separated from actors' names and made into a separate list making two much smaller lists, if that is any better. I have no problem with that, as I am not the list's creator anyway. Respectfully submitted. [email protected] (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the inclusion criteria seem at first reading too vague, they are not as bad as they appear, though challenging at first (and if this list is not patrolled, there will likely be lots of names added which dont meet criteria). they are to my reading a set of complex but rational and clearly delineated exclusion criteria to eliminate people with different name stories than the one focused on here. Stage name is a highly notable subject. And, setting aside my personal interest for a second, it does seem to be a popular article, so its not exactly useless if people are using it, about 300-500 hits per day. Doing a thumbnail estimate, i get 4500 names on this list. WP lists 13000 american film actors, so there MAY be 50% more actors (thus 20000) on WP if you include foreign and TV actors. Its a large subset, but not a majority. I would see the argument for deletion if most actors did use stage names, but they dont seem to. I would say this is not indiscriminate: stage names are chosen by actors, and the acting world encourages image manipulation, including renaming. they are in a sense taking a stand on the issue of whether they keep their birth name or try for something "better". This is not eye color, and it directly relates to their notability as actors, who bank on their name. I wonder, though, if we could trim out people in the pornography business, as its not really notable that they use a stage name. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea by Mercurywoodrose (re removing porn actors, not a one of which was ever added by me by the way -- they have their own groupies!!) We could also, as I mentioned earlier, separate names by actors and musicians, creating two smaller lists, although there are undoubtedly some individuals which would be impossible to pigeon-hole as they are both actors and musicians. [email protected] (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stage names are important, but I don't think a list of stage names is important. It seems to me that if one wants to find out if a particular actor uses or has used a stage name, they would just go to the page on that person; I don't know what purpose a list of stage names serves. Roscelese (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, Roscelese: not every page or article is necessarily as well-maintained as this list. [email protected] (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a reason to improve those pages, rather than to have a list that is unlikely to serve any purpose. (Or I could be wrong; would your first try be "List of stage names" if you wanted to find out an actor's stage name?) Roscelese (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably check the actor's page first. However, since there are thousands of names I see no reason why a list which is "well organized and useful, easy to browse or search" (as noted below by MelanieN) should not be kept. [email protected] (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was all for delete when I saw the article title - I thought, what a hopeless subject, it'll just be a bloatfarm! But I changed my mind when I saw the article. It is well organized and useful, easy to browse or search, and every name is a bluelink, in other words notable. It is exactly what the name states - a "list". Wikipedia does have room for lists, and this (to my surprise) is a good one. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I wouldn't suggest trying to separate musicians from actors. As Rms points out, there is a lot of overlap. However, pulling out the porn stars to a separate article might make sense, since virtually NONE of them perform under their real names. --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic: Stage names. Meets requirements of WP:SAL some splitting or winnowing as suggested above is probably warranted. I am surprised that no one noticed that this is really a list of actor's real names as all the article links are actually to stage names not real names.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2010 (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.