Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)

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 Userfy per Black Falcon's request. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)

List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Huge, unmaintainable mess of a list, where all the blue links are already covered in List of actors from Germany and Category:German actors. List will never be completed, nearly all the red links are German actors who are not popular enough in the English world to merit an article on the English encyclopedia. The English Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every semi-famous actor of every country in the world..etc.. Usedup 07:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Usedup 08:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Without context added, there is nothing here that could not be handled in a category or a series of sub-categories. (Yes, I am aware that dates they began their carreer is context, but this can be handled as easily by a series of date-ranged subcategories). I am also concerned that the original article was straigh out copy-pasted from another Wikipedia, and that most of the contributions appear to be of a cosmetic or disambiguation nature. Delete. -- saberwyn 08:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmaintainable and what is worse, the fact that one claims to be an actor having had a minor role would suffice to be in the list. Maybe there should be a category German Actors Alf^Photoman 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but Comment I agree with the comments above about the list probably being unmaintainable due to its size. However, I did want to point out that a list does not have to only include people with Wikipedia articles. Someone can be worth mentioning in a list but not quite be notable enough for their own seperate article. Therefore this list could include actors who might not otherwise appear in the corresponding category. Moreover, I think the general concept of a "list of actors" might be worthwhile if the list provides some additional summary information about the actor next to their name to supplement the corresponding category. Thus while I don't think the current version of this list is useful, I do think it might be possible to come up with an alternative way to present some almanac style information about certain related German actors that would both supplement the category and be more manageable in size. Dugwiki 19:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well as a "list" you would expect most of the entries to have articles. Usedup 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most, but not necessarily all. Dugwiki 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am highly concerned by the statement "list will never be completed" being used as a reason for deletion. Few categories will ever be completed. Wikipedia will never be completed. History will never be completed. -- Black Falcon 04:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have misunderstood what was meant by "completed." Out of curiosity, why is this so much of a concern? and to what end? But to respond to your comment, I would point out that by "completed" I mean "a majority of list elements having corresponding articles." A list of red-linked names with no other information is not helpful to anyone, and for that reason, if a list like this were to exist and serve a purpose, the names would have to have a corresponding article. List of English people, List of Germans, and List of French people are all massive lists of somewhat equal proportion to this list, but all are "completed" (save maybe a few red-links here or there). This list will never be "completed" in the sense that those lists are because it is just plain impossible to make an article for every kinda-famous German actor and actress. Saying categories will never be completed either isn't at all analogous to this argument. A category serves the purpose of organizing already made articles. Lists serve no true organization purpose that a category couldn't handle. Usedup 08:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I see now what you meant. I was referring to a different meaning of "completed" as in "no more information will be added to this list because it includes all persons/objects in its class past, present, and future". However, I disagree with your contention that "Lists serve no true organization purpose that a category couldn't handle." Categories organize alphabetically only. Lists can organize by other context-specific and relevant information. In this case, I am inclined to agree with deleting the article. However, I agree not because this is a list of redlinks (which is acceptable per WP:LIST for development purposes), but rather because it's a list that does not provide any sourcing or additional information for the redlinks.

I also disagree with your reasoning that the redlinks "are German actors who are not popular enough in the English world to merit an article on the English encyclopedia". First, WP should not be biased toward the Anglophone world. Second, just as inclusion in WP is not necessarily an indicator of notability, not having a WP article is not necessarily an indicator of non-notability. If you will note, the proportion of redlinks falls over time in the article--it could just be that the mass of redlinks for the first half of the 20th century are notable actors, but in whom there is little current interest and/or easily accessible online sources. -- Black Falcon 08:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I respond to the comment I just want to clear up I'm not judging their notability by their lack of an article. I'm judging their notability because I randomly selected a few and looked them up. Obviously, tons of notable people don't have articles on wikipedia yet. In fact, because of the inherent prejudices of a lot of editors, we end up having tons of semi-notable people of some particular orientation and a lack of Universally-notable people.

Anyway...what encyclopedic value does a list of unknown (to the English-world) German actors serve on the English wikipedia? In a way, that's similar to having a list of characters from an American television show not aired in Germany on the German wikipedia. It serves no beneficial purpose. Of course the English wikipedia should be "bias" (I'm using this term in a non-negative way) towards the Anglophone world. Should we make articles for department stores that are really popular in Germany but completely unknown to the English-speaking world? I'm fairly positive an article like that would be deleted in a flash. Maybe a mention of the department store would be legitimate in an article on "shopping in Germany" or something like that. I'm not saying popular German actors CAN'T have articles on the English encyclopedia, I'm saying semi-popular German actors SHOULDN'T have articles on the English wikipedia because it interests probably two or three German-language-majors...and indeed, lists of an interest to a minority never pass on wikipedia; they are usually labelled as listcruft. Usedup 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should not have a list of semi-notable people regardless of whether they are Germans, Christmas Islanders, or Americans. However, we should have an article on a department store in Germany if the subject passes WP:N. Should we delete all the History of X and Politics of X articles for all countries except Canada, the UK, US, Australia, and NZ (I'm assuming you are referring to the traditional European Anglophone countries, with the exclusion of other Anglophone countries like India, Jamaica, and Liberia)? A subject is notable if it meets WP:N regardless of when or where it happened.

Your comment that an article not directly relevant to the English-speaking world "serves no beneficial purpose" is entirely subjective and essentially a restatement of WP:IDONTKNOWIT combined with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTUSEFUL (the last link doesn't actually exist, but you get my meaning). The purported goal of Wikipedia is to be the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge in the English-speaking world. http://en.wikipedia.org is the English-language Wikipedia, not Wikipedia for the English world, and I think it would be a great disservice to both the project and its members to try to make it the latter. I agree with your comments about this list in particular, but completely oppose any attempt to generalise it to apply to non-Anglophone topics.-- Black Falcon 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Histories and politics of other countries are not "unknown" to the English-speaking worlds like a department store or TV-show would be. So because you think we should make an article for that department store because it passes WP:N in Germany, then we should also make an article of an unknown (to the English world) German TV-show with all the details on it and its contestants. Each time you refer to "wikipedia" as in "wikipedia should be the sum of all human knowledge" you make it look as if the only wikipedia that exists is the English wikipedia. To me, wikipedia is all wikipedias, and indeed all the wikipedias do cover all the bases pretty nicely. The "Deletion guideleines" have a lot of overlap, like here WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Again, irrelevant to this list but just for future deletions, I would say things completely unknown to English speakers stay on their corresponding foreign language wikipedias. Otherwise this opens up a can of worms to let people literally translate every article they can find on a foreign wikipedia onto here. Usedup 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is inherently subjective, in trying to exclude things "completely unknown to English speakers". Who is to say they are completely unknown? I am more or less fluent in three languages and can reasonably converse in two others and have long held an interest in the histories and politics of countries across the world. I see nothing wrong with translating articles that meet WP policies and guidelines. Ideally, all the different-language Wikipedia's should have the same content, only in different languages. Your view of notability does not conform to WP:N, which requires the presence of multiple nontrivial sources, and is thus not limited by time or location (and no, I would not want all the contestants of the show listed, though the show should be included if it meets WP:N--regardless of the language of the sources).

And how exactly do you define the "English world"? The English language is used by over 1 billion people worldwide. Is it just the 5 white Anglophone countries I noted above? Or does it also include India and Liberia? Does it include Germany, where a reasonably portion of the population can converse in English? Does it include a Rwandan Tutsi whose second language is English? I don't see why we should exclude material that obviously meets WP:N just because an editor deems it not to be well known in the English-speaking world (whatever that is). That is more likely an indication that the topic is not well-known to the editor (see WP:IDONTKNOWIT). -- Black Falcon 01:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people discussing it on the afd say they are completely unknown. This is how the system works. As I've already said "Histories and Politics around the world" are not "unknown" but a popular German TV show in Germany might be. All different-language wikipedias should have the same content? That is very idealistic and relies on a "perfect world" phenomenon. The English world is simply any nation who's primary language is English. There are minority speakers everywhere of every language. Things that are of an interest to a minority of people typically are deleted on wikipedia. There is precedent for that. Usedup 03:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an idealistic concept that will never be achieved (I'm a realist), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try to proceed in that direction. Being unknown has nothing to with whether a topic is encyclopedic. You define the "English world" as "any nation who's primary language is English". So, the English Wikipedia should have articles of relevance to countries like the US, UK, Ireland, NZ, Canada, Australia, India, Jamaica, Liberia, Ghana, Tanzania, etc.? That's seems rather a spotty selection not necessarily connected by geography or culture. Also, English is becoming a universal language, so it will not be too long before a large proportion of populations (at least those with access to education) in most countries will be able to converse in English (oh, and about 20-40% of a country's population--I mean Germany--is not an insignificant minority). I strongly oppose your suggested ethnocentric (no wait, more like linguo-centric?) approach and am surprised that you would want to create such a fragmented Wikipedia. I will, however, respect your views (even though I oppose any attempt to apply such views as the basis of deleting articles or content from Wikipedia). Let's leave it at that. -- Black Falcon 08:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, if the Tootsi nation (making it up) of Burundi happen to have internet access and want to write an article about a tribal ritual only known to them in their native language, I'm sure it passes notability among their entire population, but it is completely unknown to English speakers and I will gladly nominate it for deletion; I'm quite certain people will gladly support deletion on the afd. Equivalently if the entire cast of actors of a semi-popular German soap-opera were given articles on wikipedia, I would nominate these for deletion too. This isn't happening so far. Nearly all the actors we do have on this wikipedia are pretty much in line with general notability, enough to merit an English encyclopedia, but your extreme stance on this is, in my opinion, is compromising the legitimacy of wikipedia as an encyclopedia and turning it into a dumpster for everything that attracted some attention in the world. That's bad. Sorry. Usedup 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Even if that "ritual" is the subject of multiple reliable sources published in Rwanda or Burundi (the common languages in those countries are English, French, and Kinyarwanda)? I'm not saying that subjects on Wikipedia should not satisfy the notability criterion, and please stop presenting my arguments as such. The cast of a soap opera will not meet WP:N, regardless of whether it's an American soap opera or an Andorran one! However, your argument is that even if a subject satisfies notability, it does not belong on WP unless it is "known" to "English speakers" (which, for some reason, excludes English-speaking Tutsis). I don't want "everything that attracted some attention in the world". I want everything that passes WP:N, which makes no distinction as to time or place (or ethnicity or race). And if you nominate perfectly legitimate articles (i.e., meeting WP:N, WP:A, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT for deletion for no other reason than a claim that they are "unknown" in the English world, that is a clear-cut case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. No offense, but I'd rather not have the content of an encyclopedia determined based on what the majority of (apparently) white "English-speakers" know or do not know, or more accurately, based on the individual dislikes of editors. -- Black Falcon 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I react strongly against the ethnocentric attitude of Usedup, and his/her views are not in agreement with any of the notability policies/guidelines on Wikipedia. Personally, I have no problem reading the German article if I want to know something about a German actor covered in the German-language but not the English-language Wikipedia. But if I would want to know something about Thai cinema or theatre, and the only articles on Wikipedia were written in Thai, I would not have any alternative. English is the global lingua franca. At least at this stage in history, English is the only language in which a truly universal encyclopaedia is likely to be written. Pharamond 07:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind sharing what ethnicity I'm "centric" for? Usedup 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another point: This isn't actually covered by List of actors from Germany and Category:German actors. It seems to be a translation of an outdated and incomplete version of a list of actors in German-language films at the German Wikipedia. These may well be Austrian, Swiss, or actors from some non-German speaking country who have played in German-language films (like Kristina Söderbaum or Françoise Rosay). I'm sure the English Wikipedia will eventually have a much more complete coverage of German and German-language cinema. The actual problem with the list is the somewhat arbitrary character of the selection, but that is something it seems to have in common with every other list of actors (that is actually a list of lists, but follow the links). If this list would have been based on some authoritative source, I think it would have been fine. As it is, it is still probably a useful list of red links showing missing coverage. Any chance it could be transferred from out of article space but still kept around somewhere? Isn't there a "WikiProject" for film that could store this as a to-do list? (The point of keeping it here, rather than just at the German Wikipedia, is that one can see which links are blue or red.) Pharamond 07:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Request to the closing admin. In light of my discussions above with Usedup and the information provided by Pharamond, I request that this information be userfied to a subspace of my user page (assuming the consensus is to delete) until such time as I trim/improve it and suggest its recreation, merge it into List of actors from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, or find an appropriate WikiProject which would take it. Thank you, Black Falcon 08:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, I have no preference as to where on my page the link to the user subspace is located. -- Black Falcon 08:46, 3 March 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.