Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic Actresses and Actors

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Not deleted; no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic Actresses and Actors[edit]

No more notable than List of Catholic Criminals, which is already up for VfD. The religion of an actor is not important unless they make it so, such as Mel Gibson. Zoe 05:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is just a rehash of the debate just finished. We had a VfD for the comprehensive list of Catholics: Votes for deletion/List of Roman Catholics. The article was kept, but many wanted to break it up into smaller articles. This article was a section of List of Roman Catholics, and was recently split off into a separate article, as were many other sections. If it gets deleted it will just be returned as a section of the original article. We might as well keep the smaller lists, but in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter, the information will end up somewhere. We are just going over the same tired old ground here. NoSeptember 06:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I'm beginning to feel exhausted: haven't we been thru with the same stuff already ? Mir Harven 16:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I don't understand--I thought this was settled with the division and reorganization of the site. Why are we debating deletion again?? User:[email protected]
  • Delete. This is not just some small nationality or a minority somewhere, but the majority religion of the Americas and large parts of Europe, as well as a prominent minority in many other countries in the world. Unless you want to probe into every individual's faith, this would include almost every actor and actress from France, Italy, Spain, Poland, (Republic of) Ireland, large parts of Germany etc. Unmaintainable and ridiculous. Uppland 13:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh Lord, something of this scope is completely unmaintainable and pretty much pointless. If there was some sort of correlation between acting and Catholicism I could support this list. --NormanEinstein 15:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slightly more NPOV than List of Catholic Criminals, but still a list that is non-encyclopedic and would take forever to compile all actors and actresses who are Catholic (that list is big, but by no means is it complete, I'm sure.) ral315 16:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even close to completion, it would be impossible, there are alot of Catholics, and alot of actors and actresses. In countries like France and Italy, almost everyone is Catholic, so in theory over 90 percent of their actors and actresses should be on this list, 25 percent of American actors and actresses, and many from the many other largely Catholic places in the world. It might be different if Catholisism was a small unpopular religion; it isn't. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 16:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete being Catholic is not unusual enough to warrant a list. --Tim Pope 17:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — How does this differ from the following: List of Jewish actors and actresses, List of Indian movie actresses, List of Quebec actors and actresses, List of female theater actresses, List of female movie actors, List of Catholic American Actors, List of actors who have played lesbians, bisexuals and gay men, &c. &c. &c. ? — RJH 17:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We may need to set some guidelines on the validity of lists of people existing on Wikipedia, because it appears that some just don't like them, period. In addition to all the actor-related lists you listed, there are dozens of Catholic lists, Jewish lists, Muslim lists, and on and on. Should we VfD each in turn? It seems to be the trend. NoSeptember 17:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have wanted to say, “delete” for the past few days, but I have changed my mind. I wanted to see the value of such a list. What value could it have?
    • VALUE: Let's say you are an 11-year-old school child and wanted to write a paper for class of prominent Catholic entertainers, or are a reporter for the Bumpkintown News and wanted to write an article about prominent Jewish physicists. You might want to include a list, and/or work off of one to create your assignment.
    • MORE VALUE: I would like to see the list have even more value by placing more information into the list. Instead of just a list of names, it would be move valuable if it contained useful information. I would like to see notes added in parentheses after a name entry: “(practicing)”; “(born into Catholic family)”; “(served as alter boy)”; “(converted at age 69)”; “(non-practicing)”; etc.
  • As for the list becoming long: that is for the people who contribute to it regularly to worry about. They can start filtering by prominence later, as they see fit. You don’t need every Sean, Carlos, and Mario on the list, if the list gets to big, you can make it prominent actors.

WikiDon 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we can have infinite lists of 'people who are in category X, who are also in category Y' (e.g. 'List of blue-eyes sportsmen). Unless the two categories are likely to impinge on each other (e.g. 'Catholic philosophers', 'Afro-American politicians') or we are dealing with a minority cross-sections, which have otherwise become notable in debates (e.g. 'List of American actors who were professing communists'), I would always say delete --Doc (?) 17:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To Doc's point, I think we can legitimately establish that a list identifying some remarkable condition (i.e. being from Quebec) warrants a presence, if only to satisfy the lust of listmongers. In this case, however, Catholic seems too universal a category to be of much interest or value. Also, on a different note, isn't 'actor' now gender neutral? Dottore So 18:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, actors, criminals etc are not maintainable and not very relevant. List of archbishops may be. Pavel Vozenilek 02:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's kinda bizarre one has to resort to quoting himself, but, as Ned Kelly had said: "Such is life.". So:
  • 1.Having read the "delete answers", I've come to a unanimous (hehheh..) conclusion: the list must be kept. Arguments for deletion go something like this: yeah, and List of Muslims, List of Jews, List of Buddhists, .., too.. It won't happen. These list will not be deleted. So- either all or not a single one. Since the former option is out of question- the RCC list must stay (albet radically modified in not a few features). Since I was the one who has been, initially, the most suspicious about the RCC list, I can ask with some authority: why is this list here at all ? Not accompanied by other fellow lists ? Now, the whole affair begins to smack of something...undesirable. Mir Harven 08:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is what we have categories for. Proto t c 09:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful list with a lot of editers who keep it up to date. Doohickey 16:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my arguments in Votes for deletion/List of Catholic Criminals. Ken talk|contribs 17:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it's useful. --Chris 18:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, go ahead and delete it, because it's only notably list-worthy when criminals, actors, and what-have-you are not of the One True Faith </sarcasm—or is it?>. → (AllanBz ✎) 03:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why would anyone want to read this...? Unmanagable, pointless and potentially endless. Hopefully the other similar lists will get deleted sooner or later... / Peter Isotalo 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it could be organized better and if it get unamanageable then ther can always be subpages... like in philosopher lists. gren グレン 12:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. it was said that Catholics are a majority in the West, nevertheless it's wise to keep the list in order not to get confused, for there are always exceptions. User:Cockney
  • Comment - List could be relevant if it would include actors and actresses whose career is closely linked to their catholicism, that is, who have played prominent roles in movies or plays with strongly catholic themes or who are outspoken catholics. Those who just happen to be catholics would not qualify. - Skysmith 10:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. (AGAIN-AS I ALREADY VOTED, BUT WANT TO ADD SOMETHING)-Skysmith--do you mean fanatics like Mel Gibson; trampy hypocrites like Loretta Young and Grace Kelly; IRA supporters like Morrissey, Mickey Rourke, Eddie Dowling; nuns like Dolores Hart (and formerly June Haver); Peter Boyle, a former Irish Christian Brother; horrible/sadistic/reactionary folks like Bing Crosby, Arthur Godfrey, Pat O'Brien; converts like Jane Wyman, the Barrymores (child converts), Sir Alec Guinness; et al--the list is fascinating and should be kept. Why is Zoe allowed to reopen a previously closed subject, particularly AFTER some of us have spent a lot of time, energy and money to update (the list was already in existence before I ever edited, added or deleted anything) this list. Yes, in theory, it could go on forever, but nobody is going to put down unknown, minor or cameo actors from predominantly Catholic foreign countries, and if someone were stupid enough to do that, those entries could be culled from the list by any editor or member of the Wikipedia community paying attention, as someone always is, as I have learned. 67.100.55.13 18:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, I think this comment is at least bit out of line. Second, most of those people are not famous for their religion but for their other endeavors. Based on this comment, you plan to fill the list with inappropriate POV commentary about them and that would constitute vandalism. Third, WP has large number of articles about "foreign" people (IP comes from California so I presume that you refer to non-Americans) - Skysmith 19:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think on a page like this POV is not only OK, but essential to the decision of whether or not to keep the list, on which I have spent a lot of time and money and thus have an investment. I don't think I was out of line, but I apologize to anyone who was offended. I used the above examples as examples of how interesting the list can be with surprises and personal details and yes, exposing the hypocrisies and false images of people in the public eye who may not be what they pretend to be, and the Catholic church is a great place to start--it lends itself more to that aspect than say, Methodism or Presbyterianism--given its history of censorship and condemnation. And I don't plan to include POV about them, as it would most likely be removed anyway and would get me blocked, but I think given the subject matter some POV is inevitable, as opposed to other areas (science, technology, mathematics, geography, astronomy, etc.) where POV is wholly unnecessary and should be punished.

By the way, what is "IP", and why do you think I am in California--I am in New York!! [email protected] 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again- the discussion on the validity of this list is completely out of touch with reality. We got actors who are Lutherans, born-again Christians,..(they're incorporated in denominations' lists, for instance: List_of_Lutherans, List_of_born-again_Christian_laypeople,List_of_Latter-day_Saints#Actors, List_of_Buddhists#Celebrity_Buddhists,...). This is a list of people who are nominally Catholics (as is the case with Lutherans or Mormons/LDS people). As I see it, we got here double standards. Catholics should not be discriminated against in such harmless fun stuff as lists just because they are majority, numerically strong minority or what not. Mir Harven 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like intended surreptious advocacy, which is against the WP policy (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not under Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine). And the IP address above refers to Covad Communications, California, so the message at least came through their routers. (Note: I am not catholic, by the way. Any references to catholic practices belong to appropriate articles, like the criticism section of the Roman Catholic Church.) - Skysmith 08:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skysmith - Who is committing the "intended surreptitious advocacy, and what does it mean?? Am I the screw up again?? Or are you referring to Mir Haven?? Why is it OK to have lists of Lutherans, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Christian laypeople, et al and NOT Catholics?? I think Mir Haven destroyed his own talking points with illogic. WikiDon and NoSeptember, who seem to be the "leaders of the pack" (if you will) have it right. And again, why was Zoe pemitted to reopen this debate which was fairly settled and finalized--isn't that kind of sabotage and willful disregard for the norms of the debate and a respectful acceptance of the will of the majority (why usually goes AGAINST me, by the way) a violation of Wikipedia Netiquette?? If Zoe is an editor then she should be penalized for causing this kind of dissension and turmoil. By the way, Skysmith, why would I care what religion you are?? I am Jewish if you want to know. I look forward to everyone's responses, once again, in this infernal, endless, pointless waste of time, debate, which as far as I am concerned was already settled once. Are Zoe and her allies just looking to keep counting the ballots again and again (shades of Florida 2000) until the count goes her way?? Signing off, [email protected] 18:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • To put it simply, POV is not okay. Your comments referred to strong opinions of some famous people and unfortunately number or others have tried to insert their POV into various articles in the past. Also, I am not referring to my sect here since I am not catholic. Also note that I have mostly commented, having no vote but I think that someone's religion is relevant only if they are famous for it (in this case, Mel Gibson would fit the bill). As for your choice of rhetoric, calm down. - Skysmith 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm personaly not too bothered which way this debate goes - but, please assume good faith and stop trolling --Doc (?) 18:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV is unavoidable, we are humans not machines. Again, what is "intended surreptitious advocacy" (you spelled "surreptitious" wrong, by the way, Skysmith)?? What is "trolling"?? Why was Zoe allowed to reopen this debate and threaten all the time, money, work, effort that I have spent on this project, which for whatever reason, it doesn't matter why, is interesting and is something I look forward to. I also contibute to the Jewish show business figures page, but admittedly, not as much. NoSeptember promised that the lists would remain, albeit configured differently. Regrettably I cannot "assume good faith", Doc glasgow. [email protected] 00:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--there is some useful and interesting info. here. I am a Catholic (from Poland) and I am not offended. Czesć, dzien kuje!! Karas [email protected] 18:11, 18 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Catholic_Actresses_and_Actors&oldid=1137991994"