Please note i stated twice i didn't dispute your argument. 

I simply pointed out the bar is not exact match (aka carbon copy).

Those words have been used before (yours was simply the most recent use so i quoted it) and we need to stop using them.

Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
It's annoying when people are determined to eliminate correct and easy-to-research data from profiles.  Spend your time doing something constructive, like filling out empty profiles.  There are a LOT of them in the database.

not that this is directed at my comment, but that's kind of my point. If it's so easy to document why not do something constructive and add the documentation for these uncredited entries. That will prevent the next user from coming along and saying "removing undocumented uncredited" (or whatever variation they use). Just because it's obvious they are valid to (generic) you and you (again generic) know about Ken's clarifications doesn't mean the next new user who is trying to help the database does.

Quoting Tracer:

Quote:
Too bad Ken can't come up with a system to filter (uncredited) submissions like birth years.  That way if someone wants to make corrections to the credited cast yet doesn't keep a copy of the (uncredited) entries in their local it won't effect the online DB.

I'd support that, in fact I think I've said in previous discussions that cast and uncredited cast should should be two separate sections.

-Agrare

He did not make a later statement so that one should be followed but I'd suggest as a clarification of
Ken Cole
I'll reiterate it here - if the source of the data is not immediately evident, there's no reason to remove uncredited entries.  However, if (for instance), the data is a carbon copy of IMDB or any other third party database, that is enough reason to remove it.  When removing it, be specific in your contribution notes so we don't pass it over