Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of seiyū

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 keep, no consensus. mikka (t) 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of seiyū[edit]

This page is redundant and very difficult to keep up because all of the seiyū should already be listed on the Category:Japanese voice actors page. I can see making a page of "Notable seiyū" or some other category list, but it's redundant to make a list of all of them when it already exists under the category listing. nihon 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not only is there a category for this anyway, there is also another duplicate list of "Notable seiyū" on the Seiyū page itself. Shiroi Hane 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the category doesn't give the Japanese name. Kappa 23:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The individual articles do, though. The MOS indicates that the Japanese should not be given when providing a link to another article when that article includes tha Japanese. --nihon 00:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That applies to prose articles, not to lists, or at least it shouldn't apply to lists. Kappa 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a list which appears to be of interest to only very few people and/or is large and unmaintanable, i.e. listcruft. Also redundant to the category. Stifle 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only about 120 million people in Japan who listen to Seiyus. Kappa 00:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPandexpand. There should be redlinks in such a list. 132.205.45.110 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, category and list do different things. Move "Notable seiyū" from the Seiyū page into the list article. The very fact that this list exists in two places says that it is considered useful by more than one person. mikka (t) 22:52, 24 January 2006 (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.