Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity niches

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 11:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity niches

Mostly finishing incomplete nomination, but inclined towards delete--seems awfully subjective, thus POV. I mean yeah, Terri Garr and Lisa Kudrow are often compared, but Dustin Hoffman and Zack Braff? And is "Charlie Chaplin --> Johnny Depp" accurate, or should it be "Charlie Chaplin --> Robert Downey Jr."? Niteowlneils 03:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - It does seem very subjective. I wouldn't even agree on the Chaplin -> Downey idea. Chaplin acted, wrote, directed, and scored films. The closest comparison I can think of there might be Woody Allen or Ruben Blades. I think might be better without the examples, but it's hard to understand the description without some examples. Maybe it could use one or two solid examples to give the idea. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 03:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I think an argument could also be made for "Charlie Chaplin --> Paul Reubens"--also a writer, producer, composer, and director, in addition to acting, plus is better known for physical comedy, rather than Allen's more cerebral. Just more evidence of the slippery slope of the article's premise. Niteowlneils 04:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research, neologism, or unencyclopedic, absent some showing that this is actually a valid and documented topic in pop culture studies. Postdlf 03:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdlf. - Lucky 6.9 05:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 08:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, original research, subject so poorly defined and subjective as to be meaningless. Dcarrano 16:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above royblumy 22:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Amusing theory but not encyclopedic. ~ WCFrancis 00:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.