Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Academy Award Historical and Non-Fictional Roles

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. Also per WP:CSD#A3; consists only of a rephrasing of the title. Sandstein 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award Historical and Non-Fictional Roles[edit]

Seems to be stretching it just a bit to have a list of oscars won for historical roles. See WP:IINFO and the purpose of lists at WP:LIST; I can't imagine anyone would ever search for or need this. The user in question has had oscar-related pages like this deleted before, so it isn't like he's walking into this blind. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable juncture here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer (besides, the list is empty). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, the problems of posting an article before you have anything to say. Put up at 21:16, nominated at 21:19. However, it may just as well, and it appears that the author may have had a change of mind about the topic. I'm not sure what you can say with such a list ("Ben Kingsley had an award-winning performance as Mahatma Gandhi"). But the larger question is, did he win because of his acting, or because he was acting as Gandhi? Since we don't know what motivates the Academy voters, we can't be certain. (Honestly, I don't recall if Ben Kingsley won an Oscar for Gandhi, but if he did, that would be the question). Speaking of "that is the question", if someone excels at a performance of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", we can't compare the actor to the original Caesar. Mandsford (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a viable list topic to me. Clearly notable, no? I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time on an article that might be soon deleted either, especially if I had previous effort filed in the round file. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say whether it's clearly notable or not. Although it's understandable that an author wouldn't spend lots of time on an article that might soon be deleted, I don't see the point in posting an article without at least some content. I think that the author made a mistake in that regard, saying, in effect, "This is going to be a list about _____... if it's OK with you..." Once you post an article, and it's on the list of recent changes to the system, you're offering it for review. This one was a quick read, and so it was nominated soon after it was posted. Maybe this would have been a viable or notable topic, but there's nothing within the article to show that it would have been. I do think that the portrayal of an historical figure is notable, and an actor winning an Academy award is notable... but you'd have to have a lot of context to show why the intersection of the two is noteworthy. Context could be added to justify a list of award winning or nominated performances. Going back to the Gandhi example, there are sources to show that Ben Kingsley studied the subject in depth. On the other hand, if he won, was it because he did a great job (as did the other four nominees), or was it because the voters were saying "He did a hell of a Gandhi!!". Anyway, one should post articles without worrying about what other people are going to say-- but posting an article with no content, for any reason, is pointless. Mandsford (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate (non) list. If it actually existed, this list would seem to be composed of both awards and nominations over several categories, cherry picked on account of the type of character played. The awards are clearly notable, but a list of this sort is basically trivia and original research. PC78 (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is completely devoid of any useful content. I am well aware that we should give new articles a chance and articles are always a work in progress. But the starting point needs to be non-zero. And in this case, it is not at all clear that this is a viable list. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2008 (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.