Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Files Famous Actors Non-Recurring

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, unsourced, POV, fails WP:LIST. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:57Z

[edit] X-Files Famous Actors Non-Recurring

X-Files Famous Actors Non-Recurring (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Indiscriminate and problematic list with subjective inclusion criteria. There is no connection between the actors on this list appearing on The X-Files and subsequently appearing in other TV series or films. Also, when is an actor considered "famous" enough to be included? And what about actors who were already successful when they appeared on The X-Files? Masaruemoto 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Does "non-recurring" mean "only appeared as one character in only one episode"? If so, this list does not seem very noteworthy; try making it into one short section in the main X-Files page? Anthony Appleyard 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia is not paper, this can be a perfectly encyclopaedic list (as per WP:LIST) with a bit of expansion/referencing. Matthew 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not paper does not apply here - it means the amount of articles is limitless. It doesn't mean that that all other policies can be ignored. Masaruemoto 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "Does not apply here" - I'm not following you, where does it say that? I actually see "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover", this is one of those topics :-). Matthew 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But Wikipedia is also not a directory... --RazorICE 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is not paper does not mean that every article stays just because there is room for it. We still have policies. Saying an article should stay for that reason does not help the discussion. If that were the case, we wouldn't need AFD. --Cyrus Andiron 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The list is entirely based on confusing correlation and causation. Because of that the list can only be original research. Jay32183 18:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is comparable to a theoretical article called "Blonde-Haired Lord of the Rings Elves who appreciate the colour and texture of Limburger cheese." --queso man 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — WP:LISTCRUFT, I don't think this is even notable enough to appear in X-Files as Anthony suggest above. Also WP:OR (though I guess you could look up the cast list of every X-Files episode ever), but fails WP:LIST: 'The verifiability policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references."' --RazorICE 11:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not important, not sourced, not even good enough to merge. It's four names! Why do we need it? --Cyrus Andiron 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly defined, requires a POV judgement call as to what constitutes "famous". 23skidoo 13:23, 19 April 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.