Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Kathakali actors

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. —Kurykh 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Kathakali actors

Famous Kathakali actors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subjective inclusion criterion of "famous", I'm not even sure the redlinked names are notable, let alone famous. More than 90% redlinks for a list nearly a year old isn't a good sign, redlinks aren't a problem in themselves, but it shows there isn't much hope of these becoming articles anytime soon. Saikokira 04:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep List is very useful for anyone who wishes to research Kathakali. It's information someone may not be able to get anywhere else. It's better than putting it in the Kathakali article. - Cyborg Ninja 04:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:USEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It not well sourced and a matter of opinion who is good and bad. Harlowraman 04:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as being completely unverified. The ones with articles can be categorized. Alternatively just delete all the red links from the page. Someguy1221 04:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'd be in favor of removing all the redlinks and keeping it as a list, but it would so short then that it wouldn't be worth it. So, delete this and categorize the articles that do exist until more articles are created.--Danaman5 04:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Most don't even have pages, let alone secondary sources for verification. Don't see much hope for improvement. Recurring dreams 08:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: A bad article name is not a deletion rationale, it's Requested moves indicator. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It's not the name itself, but the absent criteria, and the complete lack of verification. Someguy1221 09:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unverified. Famous is not a good word; become controversial. and - to the single keep: WP:USEFUL -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly there has to be some definition of "famous". †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 16:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete famous is too subjective and replace this with a Category:Kathakali actors Corpx 16:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back into Kathakali. Mandsford 14:10, 1 August 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.