192:
to find to verify the information herein contained. And, just because sources are not included, does not mean that they do not exist. As such, the article should be improved … not deleted. Such improvement would include the addition of sources. Furthermore, as
Mandsford states, "it needs a lot of work". I can agree with that. And, by policy, working to improve an article (as opposed to deleting the article) is the preferred means to addressing poorly-written or poorly-sourced articles.
305:
I thought this was a list of movie characters who had been nominated for Oscars, but it's actually a list of occasions when an award or nomination has been granted to person working under an an alias. That's a pretty notable topic, not trivia, and as
Mandsford says, there should be no excuse for not
191:
I agree with
Mandsford that this material needs to be sourced. Sources will be – and are – quite easily found and readily available. All of the information contained in this article is certainly not in dispute. It is rather well-known and generally accepted. Sources are not going to be difficult
195:
As far as a rename, that may be slightly tricky, but not impossible. In many cases, there was an actual nominee (a real person) who, for whatever reason, used another name (in some cases, a fictitious name and, in some cases, the name of an actual person). Mandsford has delineated several such
183:
most prestigious) awards given within the film industry. And, certainly, having fictitious people and/or fictitious names as either winners or nominees is indeed a rare, yet notable, event. It is certainly encyclopedic. (For what it's worth, I have seen far worse pass for "encyclopedic" on
154:; "Roderick James" was an alias for the Cohen brothers, Joel and Ethan; "P.H. Vazak" was actually Robert Towne; Pierre Boulle and Ian McLellan Hunter received awards in place of other people; etc. Neutral on this one, because it might have potential but it needs a lot of work.
184:
Knowledge.) This is by no means trivial or "trivia". In fact, there is clearly encyclopedic historical information and encyclopedic historical reasons underlying some of these fictitious nominees (Hollywood blacklisting during the McCarthy Era, for example). This is
210:. To that extent, Mandsford's post above is not fully accurate. And, to that extent, renaming of the article must consider instances such as Donald Kaufman in which the nominee is indeed fictitious. Thanks. (
88:
83:
92:
75:
323:: for all the above reasons. It needs renaming, citing and possibly a restructure. I agree that ficitious nominees isn't completely correct, but I'm not sure what name covers
176:
I would not categorize the information in this article as "trivia" at all. At best, that classification is a matter of opinion, about which reasonable minds may differ.
121:
79:
249:
278:
71:
63:
424:
407:
390:
365:
344:
315:
296:
267:
239:
219:
163:
137:
57:
196:
instances above. However, there has been at least one case in which a completely fictitious person was nominated for an
Academy Award:
415:: Someone's reordered the page, I've added a few cn's and started a discussion about what it should be renamed on the talk page.
17:
150:
nominees, whose nominations were made under a cover name not their own. Thus "Robert Rich", 1957 winner, was actually
230:
based on
Mandsford's info. While the article is badly named and badly in need of sourcing, it is a notable subject.
215:
439:
36:
438:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
146:
Definitely needs a change of title, and no excuse for not sourcing this. Stated briefly, the article is about
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
211:
133:
291:
262:
420:
340:
53:
386:
335:(Pierre Boulle, Ian McLellan Hunter) without covering any name that isn't the nominee's real name.
235:
207:
159:
48:(non-admin closure). And the award goes to...those who came out in unanimous favourable consensus.
173:– I strongly oppose deletion of this article. I will offer my responses to the above comments.
403:
361:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
378:
311:
285:
256:
416:
336:
188:
the type of information that belongs in, and one would expect to find in, an encyclopedia.
129:
49:
382:
231:
197:
155:
151:
399:
354:
109:
307:
202:
398:
as an interesting encyclopedic list. But it does need sourcing and a rename.
377:
be renamed. You would expect an article with this title to reference
432:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
128:
Interesting trivia, but doesn't merit its own (short) article.
179:
Academy Awards are among the most prestigious (if not,
116:
105:
101:
97:
373:, of course, but it does need better sourcing and it
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
442:). No further edits should be made to this page.
331:(Robert Rich, Roderick Jaynes, P.H. Vazak) and
352:Seems notable enough, but needs sources/refs!
8:
250:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
279:list of Film-related deletion discussions
72:List of fictitious Academy Award nominees
64:List of fictitious Academy Award nominees
277:: This debate has been included in the
248:: This debate has been included in the
7:
200:was nominated for Best Writing for
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
459:
58:00:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
435:Please do not modify it.
425:08:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
408:13:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
391:07:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
366:07:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
345:02:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
316:01:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
297:23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
268:23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
240:23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
220:23:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
164:21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
138:20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
329:"one off" pseudonyms
208:75th Academy Awards
327:(Donald Kaufman),
44:The result was
325:fictious nominees
306:sourcing this. --
299:
282:
270:
253:
212:Joseph A. Spadaro
450:
437:
357:
294:
288:
283:
273:
265:
259:
254:
244:
119:
113:
95:
34:
458:
457:
453:
452:
451:
449:
448:
447:
446:
440:deletion review
433:
355:
303:Keep and rename
292:
286:
263:
257:
206:in 2002 at the
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
456:
454:
445:
444:
428:
427:
410:
393:
368:
347:
318:
300:
271:
242:
225:
224:
223:
198:Donald Kaufman
193:
189:
177:
167:
166:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
455:
443:
441:
436:
430:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
367:
363:
359:
358:
351:
348:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:
317:
313:
309:
304:
301:
298:
295:
289:
280:
276:
272:
269:
266:
260:
251:
247:
243:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
199:
194:
190:
187:
182:
178:
175:
174:
172:
169:
168:
165:
161:
157:
153:
152:Dalton Trumbo
149:
145:
142:
141:
140:
139:
135:
131:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
434:
431:
412:
395:
379:Diana Barrie
374:
370:
353:
349:
332:
328:
324:
320:
302:
274:
245:
227:
201:
185:
180:
170:
147:
143:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
287:Fabrictramp
258:Fabrictramp
203:Adaptation.
417:Duggy 1138
337:Duggy 1138
293:talk to me
264:talk to me
130:SeizureDog
50:Ecoleetage
383:AndyJones
232:Edward321
156:Mandsford
122:View log
413:Comment
400:Vickser
356:Lugnuts
186:exactly
144:Comment
89:protect
84:history
333:covers
308:Canley
148:actual
117:delete
93:delete
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
421:talk
404:talk
396:Keep
387:talk
375:must
371:Keep
362:talk
350:Keep
341:talk
321:Keep
312:talk
275:Note
246:Note
236:talk
228:Keep
216:talk
171:Keep
160:talk
134:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:Keep
284:--
281:.
255:--
252:.
181:the
423:)
406:)
389:)
381:.
364:)
343:)
314:)
290:|
261:|
238:)
218:)
162:)
136:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
419:(
402:(
385:(
360:(
339:(
310:(
234:(
222:)
214:(
158:(
132:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.