Deletion of Actors who died in their 20s

Comment: Sounds like a case of .  In this case, the category is a bit more appropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: per #DIR. In this line numerous articles can be created like Actors who died in their 30s, Actors who died in their 40s, Actors who died in their 50s, Actors who died in their 60s, Swimmers who died in their 30s, Footballers who died in their 30s etc etc. Unencyclopedic and pointless
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Notability established by coverage in |reliable sources.  Category alone is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: It already '''''WAS''''' a category as has been pointed out above and was deleted in fD. Categorify should not be an option right now, period, as to categorify would be to recreate deleted material
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: I've been trying to get across below that the category, which was created by the same user at virtually the same time, is in fD right now. Even if, on the long shot it was kept, there is no information here that is not already in the category. Categorize should not be a choice right now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: You can't just say "speedy delete" without specifying which criteria in  it falls under.  As far as I can tell, it does not fall under any of the current criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: At first, I was going to suggest (as a replacement) an ordered list of celebrities, by age at death; which would eliminate one arbitrary point (the 20's as an age limit).  But, even then, it fails .  I think the only way this article remains unarbitrary is as an ordered list of all ages at death (not just actors); and, I'm not about to suggest that as an article.  If someone wants to set up Wikideathia to keep track of that, more power to them.  Until then,  is not a valid reason for keeping; and, the premise that the deletion of the category somehow should give this article a free pass is an equally unsound argumant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:USEFUL)

Comment: Brings together related topics and is useful for navigating the subject, which is a valid argument per :''There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL)