Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Actors in Negative Roles

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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Actors in Negative Roles

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

PROD was contested. This is an ultimate example of an indiscriminate list. While the terminology of "negative role" is frequently tossed around in the Bollywood press (as are terms such as "mega-hit" or "super flop", it is a very subjective categorization for which there is no chance of obtaining any objective criteria for which encyclopedic content could be developed for an encyclopedic article for our readers -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an encyclopedic article, it does not have a valid subject for an encyclopedia. Most of the list is not supported by sources, but original research. And I don't see good chances that this may be changed in the future, especially as the creator of the article has been blocked indefinitely. --RJFF (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not exactly indiscriminate, but it's rather subjective and unencyclopedic. It's hard to imagine such a list being built without frequent original research or synthesis. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number of Indian film awards include specific awards for actors in negative roles (that is, playing villainous characters). So it would be possible to produce a sourced list of Indian actors who had notable performances in negative roles ... and that still wouldn't have any notability as a list in and of itself, any more than a List of American actors who have played villains would. We just don't do that sort of actor/role-type cross categorization. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian actors who have received an award for their negative role might be an appropriate article, or maybe better yet category. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the Academy Awards, we have categories such as Category:Best Supporting Actor Academy Award winners. The Golden Globes also have winner-by-award categories. Most other film award categories, at current, do not specify the award won, if they have a category at all. Category:Filmfare Awards winners, for example, but no categorization for the winners of other Indian awards. I'm not sure which awards are prestigious enough to have winner-by-award categories vs. generic winner categories vs. no categorization, but it's probably a discussion that people more familiar with the topic should undertake somewhere (although, obviously, not at AFD). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons mentioned above Danielj2705 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Subjective, especially because the numbering implies rank. Unencyclopedic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and lacking references. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undefined and undefinable inclusion criteria, unsourced, unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too subjective to construct an encyclopedic list. Are antiheroes negative or positive or neither or both?--xanchester (t) 23:46, 23 October 2012 (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.