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. Kevin (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of overweight actors in United States cinema[edit]

List of overweight actors in United States cinema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an ill-defined list and seems to me to be pejorative and casts a value judgment on persons of widely varying weight. The list is titled "overweight actors" but only uses the word "overweight" 3 times. The word "fat" is used 9 times and is generally considered offensive. And despite sources that refer to some with a variety of euphemistic words construed to mean "fat" (portly, hefty, outsized), there is no standard. Michael Tucker, who is short statured and not lean, is included. One major source is an essay, citing almost 20 names. There is no objective definition of a "fat" actor and the list in fact includes actors who were not always considered overweight, reflecting that weight is a transitive state, for instance Marlon Brando (he wasn't so in his early career). The lead to the list discusses actors who pursue roles calling for "fat actors" as a matter of career. This is simply horribly biased and in no way encyclopedic. What next? Fat actors who have blue eyes who used to be thin? Include Matt Damon because he gained a lot of weight for a role? Vincent D'Onofrio who gained what? - 80 pounds for a role, lost it all back, had to go on medication that caused a weight gain? He's up and down, who monitors that? Ill-defined and vague requirements for inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment The previous AFD started 13 March 2007 resulted in Keep. Edison (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, any kind of list that is based on a physical attribute, especially one that is not constant throughout either life or career, seems to be of dubious relevance. There are a lot of "types" and individual actors often specialise in types and breaking them down by categories or creating list articles for them, does not serve any purpose that I can see. Rossrs (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per above. Unencyclopedic. JNW (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: Some parts of the article do not seem too bad, but others appear synthesized, such as the casting call citation. It's akin to citing a flyer for a Wikipedia article, inflating its importance. The criteria for inclusion seems iffy, particularly for contemporary actors. (I removed a living actor's entry that was uncited; struck me as a BLP violation.) I do want to note that the essay is a reliable source; it is just an electronic version of an essay published in a book. So there is some precedent for discussing the role of "fat men", so I think this would be better accomplished by either converting this list article to a prose article where we only mention a handful of names. We could also merge such prose to Typecasting (acting); this seemed to be the closest fit. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per Rossrs and Wildhartlivie. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Stong delete -I've seen quite some things in my time on here but this really takes the biscuit in terms of subjective content. How do you define overweight? Do you mean clinically obese actors? Would Christian Bale be considered overweight because he gained 100 pounds from being dead thin to play Batman? The list doesn't even have 300 pound Steven Seagal or who ate all the pies I love my fried KFC Jack Black. LOL. Himalayan 16:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it does contain Jack Black, but for comparison, look at the version before I removed all the non-cited entries and ones cited to non-reliable sources [1].

Delete per nom. Nonconstant feature that is ill-defined. -Krasnoludek (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong delete per nomination and subsequent discussion. What's next . . . List of big-busted actresses in United States cinema? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - a silly idea. Why not have a list of actors with beards while we're at it? Dincher (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Chris Penn Delete per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - actually I could see some point in a list of actors who were/are notable specifically for being fat (rather than just any actors who once took an overweight role or who ate too much between parts). But to thrash out a workable definition and then to keep it focussed would demand too much policing for what it's worth. I agree with Erik's comment above, that this could perhaps be turned into an article on "Fatness in cinema" or some such thing. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Smerge (Selectively merge) to Character actor. I rescued this article in September 2006 by removing unreferenced names, writing the intro, with references reflecting considerable research, and noting examples such as Sydney Greenstreet, who played "The Fat Man" in Maltese Falcon. I found books which spoke of them as a type of character actor, just as much as a "romantic lead." I particularly wanted to avoid a listing of a noncharacter actor who simply put on a few pounds. In reviews of films or obituaries, sources which have long been included in the article as inline references like the New York Times referred to them as "proud of his rotundity (Sebastian Cabot)," "roly poly character actor (James Coco)," "rotund comic" and "fat boy (Lou Costello)," "portly" and "rotund comic actor(Dom DeLuise)," "rotund actor (Burl Ives)," and "roly poly character actor (Michael Tucker)." Several "delete" arguments were basically "IDONTLIKEIT" which is not a valid reason to fail to WP:PRESERVE well referenced results of research. So my suggestion is to keep the intro with some references and add it to Character actor with no list, but just a few of the historically important names. Wikipedia is not censored to avoid topics that may offend someone. HeartofaDog and Erik have it right. Merge the intro into Character actor and keep the referenced text with a few historical examples. That is the only way to avoid malicious or unreferenced additions. That will be better than a list which confuses as to its purpose and invites malicious or unreferenced additions. The "portly/rotund/fat/roly poly" comic or bad guy was a staple of the Golden Age of Hollywood, and those actors who made a living by carrying 300 pounds were far from romantic leading men who needed to go on a diet. {Character actor]] is a better fit than Typecasting which is more about the difficulty an actor has playing some other part than one he is known for. Edison (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Absolutely impossible to maintain. Y'all seen Jim Carrey recently? Dude looks like a walking football - because he's fattening up for the Three Stooges movie. He'll lose it later. Actors do that regularly. This list would be bouncing all over the place depending on roles the actors play. Besides, who defines "overweight" - do we base it on BMI? Look? Waist size? Impossible to manage this. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment It is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH if we do other than relying on reliable secondary sources, such as reviews or obituaries in publicatins such as the New York Times or books about actors and acting where they make the call. In Hollywood's Golden Age, the actors referenced pretty much stuck to that niche. As the article notes. today an obese character will likely be played by a slim actor in a fat suit, because the health risks of morbid obesity took their toll on to=he older generation of actors whose girth was their trademark and their fortune.Edison (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Response I actually don't buy that rationale regarding why actors play "fat" in fat suits. The sources didn't say that, and the article no longer does, although the article originally did say that today most fat characters are played by thin actors in fat suits. One source discussed Eddie Murphy's role in the Nutty Professor films and didn't address the underlying topic of a thin man in a fat suit - just that Murphy played an entire family who was large, while his alter-ego was thin. The other barely touched on "fat" roles played by thin people in fat suits as a matter of practice, it addressed films that use the topic of being big and later losing weight by using one lead actor in the suit to do so. It went on to discuss societal attitudes against obese persons and how that when thin actors play "fat" in films or on TV, it's a bit disengenuous. It didn't say anything about health risks of the morbidly obese being related to those "fat suit" roles of today, or that some given character isn't still played by overweight people. In fact, it gives a nod to Darlene Cates in Gilbert Grape and the Ricki Lake character in Hairspray. Neither source supports the statement. If this were the case, there wouldn't be a possibility of new additions to this list, which seems to be something where people add names quite often. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • CommentDid you read reference 4, from 2006, which says "Most actors who play huge do so in what's referred to as a "fat suit." Seems clear enough. Note another new book references to this genre of character actor, in "Screening genders"(2008) which has a chapter "Hard boiled and soft bellied: the fat heavy in film noir." It says (p143) that by 1958 the "fat heavy" "had become a familiar and coveted role" and that the "fat heavy" was important in the film noir mythos.. It names Sidney Greenstreet, Orson Welles, Raymon Burr, William Conrad. It says that "veteran fat actors" included Charles Laughton and others, and refers to "the increasing number of fat men's roles in crime dramas." I believe that multiple reliable and independent refs support the notability of this acting genre. It is an important and referenced part of film history. An article just on "Fat heavies in film noir" could be well supported by the available references, leaving out comic actors for a different article, also well referenced. Edison (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Response I did see that sentence, but I saw it in the context of the entire article and not a flat out commentary that actors with greater physical weight are not used anymore. I'm not arguing against an actual article that intelligently discusses the role of the "fat actor" in film noir or golden era films. My issue is with this list, the vague criteria for inclusion to a list and the fact that the only seemingly criteria is weight - which is vague. If someone wants to take the written part and work it into a meaningful article, fine. No one is stopping them. That, however, is not what this list does nor what it accomplishes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Listcruft, and furthermore where does one stop? A lot of people are overweight but not exactly fat in a Fatty Arbuckle way, would you include them too, if their BMI is above ideal? Also, "actors in United States cinema" means actors from any country who have performed in US made movies (so you would need to include, for example, Canadian John Candy, Brit Ricky Gervais and countless others. It's all so arbitrary, it's better the list were simply deleted. --Tris2000 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete for all the logical reasons already given LargoLarry (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Since no notice of this AFD was provided to the creator of the article or major contributors to it, as called for by the guidelines for AFD, I shall provide a friendly notice to all editors of the article of this AFD, other than blocked vandals, IP editors or bots. This is in accord with WP:Canvass, since I seek to inform editors of the article and specifically avoid seeking to influence their possible input. Edison (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Response - that is factually untrue. The creator of the article was notified here, a fact that you should have noted when you posted your notice to the user talkpage prior to posting your comment here. I do have to wonder why you felt the need to post a notice to every user that ever edited the page, even though about 1/3 of them have not been active here for months to years. That rather skirts violating WP:CANVASS in spirit, if not in fact. Meanwhile, the guidelines do not require that anyone be notified, it is a suggestion, and following that, the creator was notified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Edison, I'm very concerned that what you did was canvassing. The revision history statistics show that besides you, there are no editors who have made more than four edits to the article, definitely not making them major contributors. There have been more than enough editors that have come by the AfD to weigh in, so we did not need additional opinions. I'm sorry to say that this strikes me as forum shopping; you even notified me when I had edited in the course of the AfD, reflecting the lack of surgical effort. I implore you not to notify this indiscriminately again. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for crediting me with the "lack of surgical effort. "See WP:Canvassing#Friendly notices. I read that before posting the friendly notices, which complied with the guideline by being a limited posting, sent to all editors who had edited the article, regardless of their apparent views about it, nonpartisan (specifically stating that no guidance was given) and openly done (I noted here that I was doing it.) I did not post on some project or on various widely read forums, I did not fire off emails,I did not post to some buddy list, I did not advocate for any position. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people which calls for "notifying interested people" and "notifying substantial contributors to the article" while avoiding "biased canvassing," of which I would have been accused had I selectively notified editors. The notification to the the article creator was meaningless, since he had only edited for 20 minutes, on this one article, in 2006, in all his Wikipedia career. I feel that I complied with WP:AFD and WP:CANVASS. You are welcome to try and change the guidelines, or to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I struck the portion of my previous post stating that you had not notified the creator (the 20 minute editor from 3 years ago) of the article. Note that I am not advocating Keeping the article, but my concern is that there be no barrier on merging portions of the referenced text (without the appended list) to a relevant article, Character actor, and/or Film noir, without someone complaining that the material was previously deleted in AFD and cannot be in the encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Edison, what you did can be interpreted as canvassing because you posted the notices on the talk page of almost all editors of the article, regardless of the substance of the edits. WP:CANVASS#Friendly notices says to send notices to those that have "substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion", and WP:AFD#Notifying interested people says it is courteous to notify "substantial contributors" and "any main contributors of the articles" and goes to say not to nofify "people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits". I understand that you wanted to avoid biased canvassing, but you don't need to notify every editor to be neutral. For example, you notified me, and I made a minor edit more than two years ago to revert the edits of a user shortly blocked afterwards. I gave my opinion here anyway because I don't mind friendly notices about articles I have no connection with, but others might. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Trim this article - down to nothing.  Frank  |  talk  04:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Seems to me as original research, and a potential of BLP problems. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an unencyclopedic list that is potentially unlimited and subject to change often, making it impossible to maintain. --Mysdaao ^talk 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, per reasons given by LargoLarry and Mysdaao. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rewrite as article? It seems to me that there is a genuine value in having an article describing the historical (and modern) employment context for "overweight" men and women in the industry (assuming it is all tied to reliable sources, of course, which much of the items here appear to be). A few well-known examples would be useful for purposes of illustration, but this list seems superfluous, its criteria impossible to specify, and very difficult to maintain. Scartol • Tok 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment How is an article describing the historical and modern employment context for overweight men and women in the film industry encyclopedic? It wouldn't be factual, it would just be an essay filled with the POVs of the so-called "reliable" sources being quoted. 209.247.21.77 (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • CommentAnother version of saying "I don't like it," when you dismiss books and articles as "Some writer's opinion" without demonstrating they are not qualified as reliable sources. Edison (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Utterly craptastic. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment So is it the consensus here that we must pretend that Sidney Greenstreet did not play a character called "The Fat Man," in The Maltese Falconin 1941 and that, contrary to references, there were not such stereotypes in film noir of the 1940's and 1950's as the "Fat Heavy" as referenced above, and that Orson Welles did not play such a character in Touch of Evil in 1958? Seems like a triumph of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" over reliable sources and suitable matter for WP:DRV. Again, I agree that a list of names not embodied in the text with inline references invites WP:BLP violations. Edison (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Response That is not what anyone said here at any time and it's a bit of hyperbole to suggest that. No one has disputed that there may be the basis of a valid article about a genre staple. The issue that was brought here was the list itself, which had no real rule of inclusion beyond the non-specific "overweight" or "fat". The problem is that the list as it exists isn't possible to maintain because there is no way to gauge inclusion criteria and it appears to me that most everyone here agrees that maintaining a list of ill-defined personal properties isn't acceptable. Like I said before, there is nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from taking the basics from the lead and turning it into a possibly great article, but that can't be done from a list, the only criteria for which is the non-specific "overweight". There have been several points raised here that have gone unanswered, mostly about actors whose weight varies greatly, those that "get fat" for roles and that changes, or even, for that matter, actors who once were thin but gained weight as they aged, or once were fat but lost lots of weight. It's all too transitory for maintenance. But you know, suggesting that the overwhelming number of editors who don't find value in the list is fodder for WP:DRV is a bit contentious. Please take it as it is stated and consider that the comments are good faith opinions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I have no objection to having the article, but the list has no context, it needs to have weighst and amke an attempt at calculating BMIs. The list needs sortable criteria. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Hard to call. I WP:Don't like it very much either. One problem is the word "overweight" in the title. It sounds like a judgement is being made about the guys. Is there a policy "WP is not a doctor"? Also the word "actor" can be used for women as well as men. You hear this on DVD movie commentary tracks a lot. A better title might be "Movie 'fat man' actors" or something. On the other hand the material is interesting and the topic is certainly notable, depending on how it's defined. Also the effort to provide references for each person is admirable. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment The referenced text could be merged to [[Character actor], or the references could be used independently of the present text to improve any articles where they are appropriate, or to create one or more articles with no list, just referenced text. There seem to be 2 types of male actors intermixed: Film noir "heavies" like Sidney Greenstreet, and comics like Lou Costello. Former leading men who became overweight do not fit in, but the "Overweight" part of the title since it was made politically correct invited their addition to what was once an article about character actors. It is interesting that this article was far more extensively referenced (24 inline refs) than Character actor(zero references). Edison (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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.