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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 08:51Z

List of Disney Channel actors[edit]

Delete - This article was nominated not too long ago under the name "List of Disney Channel Stars" and was moved to this name as the outcome. I would not normally re-nominate an article this quickly after an AFD but in this instance I don't believe that an important issue was given due consideration. Much of the AFD focused on the utility of categories vs lists. I feel like overlooked in that was the discussion on whether listing actors by the network where their program aired is a good idea. I don't think that it is. There is some measure of precedent for deletion here. There are also a number of categories up for deletion of a similar theme and while the CFDs are still open sentiment is running in favor of deleting performer by network as a category scheme. It's no more proper as a listing scheme. Credits for an actor should be listed in the actor's article, and cast lists should be present and linked in the article for the shows themselves. Otto4711 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reply to Otto above, I just wanted to post a reminder that categories and lists do not have identical guidelines and policies for Wikipedia inclusion. In general categories have stricter guidelines than lists for what is or isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. That's because an inappropriate list pretty much only affects that list itself, but the effects of a bad category can be broader based and harder to deal with or correct. So there are times when something is inappropriate as a category, but can be acceptable as a list. In particular, while there is good consensus against performer-by-studio categories, I'm not off-hand sure whether or not there is like consensus one way or another for lists by studio. Personally, I'm going to defer judgement on this list for now, but I will say that I wouldn't be comfortable deleting a list simply because a similar category was deleted. Dugwiki 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Categories vs lists" is not under discussion here. The first AFD nom was about the categories vs lists issue. As I said, overlooked in that discussion was the question as to whether lists of actors by the network they happen to have a show on is appropriate. This nomination is regarding that question. Otto4711 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Before I state a position, I'd like some clarification on exactly what makes the list not a "good idea." I see the precedent cited by the nominator, and it seemed to be a unanimous consensus to delete that one. I could go either way here, but would like a more clear reason for deletion. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an indiscriminate list and directory, bringing together people who may have nothing else in common than they happened to have a show on a particular network that someone else did. It would be like listing Desi Arnaz with Neil Patrick Harris as "CBS actors" despite their having nothing else in common and their shows appearing on CBS almost 50 years apart. There is no substantive connection. Even disregarding that, it's a poor organizational choice for an encyclopedia. A list of Disney Channel shows with links to the show, with cast lists in each show with links to the actors' articles, is the superior organizational scheme. Otto4711 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, you linked the wrong policy section of WP:NOT. The portion that deals with "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Dugwiki 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too large to properly maintain In reviewing the afd Otto mentions as "precedent", it appears there is only one valid reason posited for deletion, namely that maintaining an entire channel's list of actors is likely to be unmaintainable due to its overwhelming size. The other comments consisted of "delete per nom" (which doesn't really say anything) and "listcruft" (any phrase using "cruft" is never a valid term or reason for deletion).

So I'm recommending deletion based on the likelihood this would be virtually impossible to properly handle. However, I do want to point out that I don't consider the List of Nickelodeon actors a very strong case for afd precedent, since it had very limited discussion and was mainly a handful of editors saying "I agree with the nom". Depending on the outcome of this Disney Channel afd, I think this afd will make a better case to check for future similar discussions. Dugwiki 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Point taken... shows on a network can have a high degree of variability, so I don't think the members would make a list of elements with enough in common. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too widespread a topic, and could set a bad precedent for other articles such as List of NBC actors, etc. to be created. 23skidoo 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloachland 03:37, 15 February 2007 (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.