Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full cast list of Flashdance

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 merge to Flashdance. MBisanz ^talk 09:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full cast list of Flashdance[edit]

No need for this - that's what IMDb is for. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Merge primary actors only. I didn't see that the main article only had two listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Per the comments here: Talk:Flashdance#Cast_list there has apparently been editing warring at Flashdance#Cast over whether the cast was to long to be included on the main article for the film, so this one was created as a means of keeping the full cast list on wikipedia, but removing it from Flashdance, getting rid of it would be largely pointless and just spark further edit warring. Anyway I agree that the list should be seperate from the main article for the film, but that we should have it some where, and this list seems to be the best place. Unrelated comment to Clarityfiend: it's been a while! Remember this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skirmish_at_Telstar ? I changed my username from theterribletwins1111 since, but it's very nice to see you're still active here, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hey, they'll have to pry the keyboard out of my cold, dead hands. I'm just concentrating on mainspace and the reference desks. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back in. At the very least the bit parts from the bottom part of the list can go. Only significant characters are covered in cast lists on film articles. List of Flashdance characters only works when the characters are discussed in reliable sources (again impossible for the bit parts). Not everything needs to be copied to Wikipedia. By linking to IMDB we are covering the information too. (Note: If these were tabelized and separated into three double-columns there'd be no specific space concerns). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge on further thought, I agree with what MacGyver says, there should be room for most of the list in Flashdance, edit warring will just have to be dealt with. Also I realise that the actions of creating the page was not a community consensus, rather the edits of one user Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merger would only add unnecessary administratia here. There's already a cast list section in the main article. Townlake (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a list. It's a mention of two lead characters. While there shouldn't be a full cast list, it does need expension with the significant roles and for that to happen we need a merge. I ran WikiBlame, but was unable to find evidence that the material to be merged was in the article during the past year (which would make merging unneccesary administratia as you say) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, its only necessary to merge the main characters back in. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (reluctantly). I created this article, since one user was determined to have a full cast list, even though it is too long for Flashdance in its current form. As a general rule, Wikipedia articles about films do not need full cast lists, as these can be found at IMDb. Rather than set off a new round of edit warring, it would be better to keep this article for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Avoiding an edit war is not a valid reason to keep an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy. Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. We maintain truncated cast lists in film and TV articles because they add context and informational value to explanations of movies and shows, but there's a limit to how much value the more obscure roles add. Townlake (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per N, NOT, MOSFILM, and splitting guidelines, with partial merge for the key roles/actors. Relevant and notable cast members should be mentioned in the film's article - this falls well within the merge size, and a good portion of the article consists of non-notable actors. We are not IMDb or similar databases, and having a full cast list for all but the most spartan of cast sizes is not in keeping with encyclopedic (ie summary) style. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't split in the past year. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last I looked, the Flashdance article had a cast list of two, with a link to the full cast list. Is that not a split? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general English that is a possible meaning of the phrase, but in Wikipedia terminology a split is when someone takes material from an article and puts it into a separate page. That didn't happen here. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but it essentially is a sub-article - whether or not it was a formal split, the results are as if it were split. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing it out because deletion would kill the edit history. If it's not a technical split, deletion would mean there is no way to attribute the list to the people who included it in Wikipedia to begin with which is crucial. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge primary actors back to Flashdance; dump the rest. This stand-alone article is not warranted because full cast lists are indiscriminate. There is zero precedent for such a list of every single role from the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the whole list to Flashdance; are we seriously worried that a list of 45 actors is going to overwhelm the main article? Put it in columns like Mgm says so it doesn't take so much space, or better yet follow the example of this featured article. Discuss on the talk page to achieve consensus about which, if any, roles should be excluded from the article. DHowell (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is something that should be merged. Quistisffviii (talk) 06:48, 14 March 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.