357:, good for information, navigation. It's also discriminate, verifiable. Not a lot of movies actually have the president as a character, so it's not impossible to keep on top of. Frankly, this list would be a sound candidate for a featured list. And, although it's not a criteria for deletion, I'd propose that in the absence of sound criteria, editors should take into mind whether or not they're destroying the hard, well-intentioned work of other editors. There's just no good reason to do that here. --
421:(not a policy or guideline), but simultaneously we get this comment at the top of this discussion: "actors can play dozens or hundreds of different roles in the course of their careers. Listing actors by the parts they play is rather trivial" So we can't argue usefulness but we can argue what is essentially the opposite, because that's what "trivial" actually means here. Anyone who wants to study how actors have played presidents, real and fictional, would find this list ....
223:
Despite precedence, this list does not seem way too trivial. It's not every other actor who gets to play the role of the
President of US. Well, the list is virtually unsourced. If there is some doubtful entry, that may be questioned. But the list apparently seems to be well researched. Yes, Knowledge
541:
well-laid out list (with more than just names) with finite membership criteria (so long as high school plays and class assignment movies are excluded). I expect that playing POTUS is a significant step in the life of an actor that is not taken lightly, therefore this is not pointless trivia. Anyone
352:
per
Dwaipayan. You certainly wouldn't want a list of "Actors who have played people named Bob" or "Actors who played government employees," but President of the U.S. is obviously more remarkable than that. Someone has put a tremendous amount of work into organizing this list. It's well done per
291:
is also not a particularly persuasive argument. One could justify a list of any sort of actor by role by saying "it's not any actor who gets to play..." whoever, including "it's not every actor who gets to play a guy named Bob" and "it's not every actor who gets to play a government employee" and
246:
It's not every actor who gets to play the role of Hamlet either, and in fact there are numerous sources that name Hamlet as the definitive role that an actor can play. They were cited in the Hamlet AFD and were not considered persuasive enough to save it.
85:
80:
576:
370:"Take into the account the hard work of other editors" is, as you rightly point out, an appeal to emotion with no basis in policy or guideline. I would go so far as to say that it should be considered an argument to avoid in AFDs.
89:
72:
603:
Useful index to information in
Knowledge (XXG). Someone who wonders "who was the actor who played FDR in that film, I think it was called Camp David or something like that" can browse this list. Categories don't do that.
434:
Fine, strike "trivial" and substitute "completely insignificant." It is completely insignificant in the career of an actor who has played hundreds of different parts that one of the parts he played was the POTUS.
123:
76:
325:
has stated below, this list would be a sound candidate for a featured list, provided some more works are put into it, necessary references provided and lead is adequately expanded. Regards.--
68:
60:
112:
562:
films and TV shows (which it is). If this article was renamed and contained an inclusion criterion, would he still object? The nomination cites no policy or guideline and
448:
Except that the significance to an actor's career of playing the POTUS isn't the only reason somebody might want to read the article. Anyone who wants to study how
632:
620:
608:
595:
583:
570:
546:
532:
522:
506:
493:
480:
462:
439:
409:
391:
374:
361:
334:
296:
279:
251:
237:
215:
187:
171:
159:
143:
130:
122:- actors can play dozens or hundreds of different roles in the course of their careers. Listing actors by the parts they play is rather trivial. See for precedent
54:
264:
292:
both are every bit as objectively true as saying it about "the
President." There's nothing inherently special or notable about playing the President.
263:. There are significant differences between portrayal of fictional characters and that of historical figures. More suitable comparisons are
17:
566:
AfD discussion as a precedent - not enough to convince me that this well-structured and easily manageable list should be deleted. --
309:. Correct. And bye the way, who is Bob? On the other hand, US President is someone. That's why this list is significant. Also, as
616:
I agree with all the keep comments above. The office of US President is a specific and special case in fiction and film.
288:
268:
647:
36:
646:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
542:
who qualifies for this list meets the notability requirements to have a
Knowledge (XXG) article about them. --
558:
completely insignificant aspect of an actor's career, not as a list of portrayals of U.S. Presidents in
406:
330:
233:
418:
384:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
354:
139:- Per nom. I would suggest it for a Category, but even then it would still be too trivial. --
156:
554:
Otto4711 appears to be objecting to this list on the basis that playing the
President is a
196:
543:
326:
229:
629:
617:
199:. In response to Vsion, note that inclusion is not always an indicator of notability.--
168:
49:
305:
Taking cue from your own opinion this list seems even more significant. You have told
490:
436:
388:
371:
358:
322:
319:
of presidents, real and fictional, would find this list .... not insignificant at all
293:
248:
209:
127:
580:
529:
459:
310:
106:
567:
503:
477:
387:. AfD is a really hostile, nasty place and it shouldn't have to be that way. --
152:
577:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of actors who played Nazis in movies
276:
272:
184:
140:
575:
Anyone interested in this discussion may also be interested in the similar
605:
592:
201:
417:
when someone calls an article up for deletion as "useful" Otto cites
224:(XXG) is not a collection of obscure trivia. But this is not exactly
197:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of obscure trivia
151:, NO categories. WAy too trivial even as a categorization scheme. --
124:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Actors who have played Hamlet
180:
640:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
452:
of presidents, real and fictional, would find this list ....
69:
List of actors who played
President of the United States
61:
List of actors who played
President of the United States
307:"it's not every actor who gets to play a guy named Bob"
102:
98:
94:
489:No one said anything about "listcruft" except you.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
628:per JayHenry. List is notable and comprehensive.
650:). No further edits should be made to this page.
265:List of artistic depictions of Mahatma Gandhi
8:
167:Too trivial & hard to keep on top of.
476:I don't think this is listcruft at all.
521:: This debate has been included in the
450:various actors have approached the role
317:various actors have approached the role
383:I mean it as a gentle reminder toward
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
523:list of Lists-related deletions
315:anyone who wants to study how
1:
427:. 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
405:per Dwaipayan and JayHenry--
269:Cultural depictions of Jesus
667:
633:17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
621:06:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
609:11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
596:08:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
584:03:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
571:23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
547:23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
533:21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
507:05:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
494:03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
481:03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
463:06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
440:03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
410:23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
392:21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
375:21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
362:20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
335:08:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
297:03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
280:02:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
252:21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
238:17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
216:07:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
188:06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
172:04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
160:04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
144:03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
131:03:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
55:20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
643:Please do not modify it.
455:not insignificant at all
32:Please do not modify it.
289:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
271:and the section in
557:
313:has stated below,
555:
535:
526:
183:trivia series. --
179:, as part of the
658:
645:
527:
517:
212:
204:
110:
92:
52:
34:
666:
665:
661:
660:
659:
657:
656:
655:
654:
648:deletion review
641:
210:
208:
202:
149:Delete outright
83:
67:
64:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
664:
662:
653:
652:
636:
635:
623:
611:
598:
586:
573:
549:
536:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
497:
496:
484:
483:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
443:
442:
429:
428:
412:
407:Golden Wattle
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
378:
377:
365:
364:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
300:
299:
283:
282:
255:
254:
241:
240:
218:
206:
190:
174:
162:
146:
117:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
663:
651:
649:
644:
638:
637:
634:
631:
627:
624:
622:
619:
615:
612:
610:
607:
602:
599:
597:
594:
590:
587:
585:
582:
578:
574:
572:
569:
565:
561:
553:
550:
548:
545:
540:
537:
534:
531:
524:
520:
516:
515:
508:
505:
501:
500:
499:
498:
495:
492:
488:
487:
486:
485:
482:
479:
475:
472:
471:
464:
461:
457:
456:
451:
447:
446:
445:
444:
441:
438:
433:
432:
431:
430:
426:
425:
420:
416:
413:
411:
408:
404:
401:
400:
393:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
373:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
360:
356:
351:
348:
347:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
302:
301:
298:
295:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
253:
250:
245:
244:
243:
242:
239:
235:
231:
227:
222:
219:
217:
214:
213:
205:
198:
194:
191:
189:
186:
182:
178:
175:
173:
170:
166:
163:
161:
158:
154:
150:
147:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:
133:
132:
129:
125:
121:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
642:
639:
625:
613:
600:
588:
563:
559:
551:
538:
518:
473:
454:
453:
449:
423:
422:
414:
402:
349:
318:
314:
306:
260:
225:
220:
200:
192:
176:
164:
148:
136:
119:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
591:per nom. --
544:Scott Davis
630:—scarecroe
424:nontrivial
273:Mao Zedong
618:Mdiamante
419:WP:USEFUL
327:Dwaipayan
230:Dwaipayan
177:Weak Keep
169:Alex43223
51:Wizardman
491:Otto4711
437:Otto4711
389:JayHenry
385:WP:CIVIL
372:Otto4711
359:JayHenry
323:JayHenry
294:Otto4711
249:Otto4711
128:Otto4711
113:View log
581:Noroton
560:notable
556:trivial
530:Noroton
460:Noroton
355:WP:LIST
311:Noroton
261:Comment
226:obscure
86:protect
81:history
589:Delete
568:Canley
504:JuJube
478:JuJube
193:Delete
165:Delete
153:Calton
137:Delete
120:Delete
90:delete
321:. As
277:Vsion
211:talk?
185:Vsion
181:POTUS
141:Ozgod
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
626:Keep
614:Keep
601:Keep
593:Peta
552:Keep
539:Keep
519:Note
502:So?
474:Keep
415:Keep
403:Keep
350:Keep
331:talk
275:. --
234:talk
228:. --
221:Keep
157:Talk
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
46:keep
606:Fg2
564:one
528:--
203:TBC
111:– (
48:.--
579:.
525:.
458:.
333:)
267:,
236:)
195:.
155:|
126:.
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
329:(
232:(
207:Φ
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.