Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American soap opera actors

List of American soap opera actors

List of American soap opera actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, and most individual soap operas have their own expansive historical cast lists. — TAnthony^Talk 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, just as nominator says. If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego_←T 08:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The word was omitted, but is implied: it is limited to notable actors, which for lists of this sort means those with a WP article, as this one has. A category and a list are complementary, and there is no reason to decide between them--the list in this case has the advantage of giving orientation and identification by . The sourcing for such lists is taken to be the sourcing justifying the article, and errors on inclusion are dealt with by deleting the article. Given that it seems to be well maintained, I don't see how it is unmaintanable--the evidence seems to be the exact opposite. It's not unlimited, any more than any other list of living people is. That the shows have lists of actors in them is all the more reason for a unified list of t h ons who actually are notable enough to have articles--not everyone in a show is notable. Thus, no valid delete reason given, Listcruf is a word that one can use for any list, and some people do. Fortunately, the policy that lists and categories can both be used is pretty clear, and it would make more sense for those who do not approve of lists as a method of organization to remember that nobody is forced to read them or work on them. DGG (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment:My issue isn't notability, because anyone with a Wikipedia article would pass that test. But not only do I think a majority of actors have appeared on a soap at one time or another, but every week more new ones appear. The list is neatly kept and long enough to seem impressive, but hardly complete; it is a potentially infinite and unmanageable list of names. Why not a List of sitcom actors? It's a pointless designation. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where someone would find this particular list useful, whereas I could see a reader looking through an individual show's list of actors and/or characters. I don't normally nominate articles for deletion, but I'm interested to see the consensus on lists such as this one. If I am in the minority, so be it. — TAnthony^Talk 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per items 6 and 7 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)