Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of typecast 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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: A category could well replace this -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of typecast actors

Ludicrously subjective list, whose entries inclusion factor often seems to be "actor with one famous role". Delete or clean-up with a chainsaw. Calton | Talk 00:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete POV and as nom states, inherently subjective. KillerChihuahua 00:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some actors are undeniably typecast, like Ben Stein as a blatently boring professor/economist type, Leonard Nimoy as Spock... the current list is obviously biased, but it could be rewritten as actors who are famously typecast to the point where it controls their entire careers (for better or worse) and is what they are best known for (or only known for). Difficult to maintain but could be useful. Can understand if no one wants to vote to keep with the current list... --W.marsh 00:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective, inherently POV. --InShaneee 01:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; inevitable POV. Deltabeignet 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I find myself on the opposite side of the fence from W.marsh. Although the list has some potential value, it is also a POV-attractor... --Daedalus-Prime 01:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly subjective list. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up worthy of being here but needs to be of higher standard.--->Newyorktimescrossword 02:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only list actors who have been publicly identified as being typecast such as George Reeves, the cast of Star Trek, Adam West, etc. should be included. The issue of typecasting is real, and a properly maintained list would be useful in conjunction with the various articles on the subject. All POV-based judgement calls should be deleted. For example, there is no evidence to suggest Gillian Anderson has been typecast. Certainly Leo DiCaprio has not been typecast as Jack Dawson... chainsaw time, indeed. 23skidoo 04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue of typecasting is indeed real. And an article on typecasting would therefore be encyclopaedic. But a list of actors who may or may not have been typecast is POV and unmaintainable. Typecasting (acting) already covers this. Some of the names are already in there as examples. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 09:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well-nominated. How could such a subjective article ever get rid of POV? Ifnord 05:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too subjective and POV-based. I doubt most film critics or casting agents would consider, say, Mary Steenburgen or Samuel L. Jackson to be typecast. --Metropolitan90 05:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up with a chainsaw. Specifically, we should narrow the criteria to actors who have had more than one role, and be very aggressive about requiring sources -- ie, it can't just be some random Wikipedian's impression; there should be reputable sources who feel that way, too. But, clean up is only a few clicks away, and this maybe could have gone there first. If cleanup didn't work, sure, I'd kill it too. Jacqui ^★ 05:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Daedalus-Prime. gren グレン 06:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per Jacqui. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, unencyclopedic. Dottore So 10:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV and pretty pointless. -- Necrothesp 10:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-Up with a Chainsaw. Worthy of being here, but needs some major improvements to quality. -- 8:56, 8 November 2005 (EST)
Delete. There's no way to make this an NPOV article. flowersofnight (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft that is inherently POV by nature.--Isotope23 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and unmaintainable (and listcruft) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is inherently POV. -- Captain Proton 17:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I CAN PLAY SHAKESPEARE! TO BE OR NOT TO BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY! Delete, though, I'm afraid. AndyJones 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently POV. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 18:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. How could this be verified, except by original research? Chick Bowen 18:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently PoV and UE FRS 19:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just too hard to maintain. Could be a good article but it's impossible to be sure of who should and shouldn't be on the list. D enni ☯ 04:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. needs cleanup though., Klonimus 05:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and unmaintainable --Carlos Prats 10:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Typecasting is indeed real but just because somebody is famous for certain role or certain kind of roles, they are not necessarily typecast. Especially if the role in question just launched their career, it may be too early to say if they are typecast or not. Not to mention to some actors intentionally want only certain kind of roles, when "typecasting" usually refers to something undesireable. This list would make sense if, for example, it would include people who are widely accepted to be typecast (ST:OS cast) or have publicly complained that they are typecast. Otherwise the list is POV - Skysmith 15:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Preaky 19:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (having already voted). It's a shame to lose this after so much work has gone into it. Deleted it has to be, though. Reading it again I found so many items I disagreed with (Leonardo DiCaprio, I mean come on). The fact that it provokes that kind of judgement is evidence of its subjectivity. There is an article at Typecasting (acting), and some of the better examples could be merged there. AndyJones 20:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV Listcruft --JAranda | watz sup 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep if cleaned up and made npow somehow. if not, delete

Youngamerican 04:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a major mess but it can be cleaned up. I'm going to do so right now. Toonmon2005 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup There could (and should) be an article on typecasting, so a list is A-OK. Xoloz 14:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WAY too subjective Astaroth5 19:42, 13 November 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.