Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:28, 15 February 2007

List of The Daily Show guests

This article fails WP:NOT#INFO. Specifically, this article is essentailly a plot summary of of every episode (#7), only a plot summary, without any real-world significance or analysis on why it is so important. It also fails WP:NOT#SOAP in that it lists what each guest was promoting when they appeared on this show. This is purely unencyclopedic info that better belongs on a fanpage instead of on Wikipedia. Please note that "well, it's a well-mantained article" and "well, there are worse articles than this" are not valid reasons for keeping this article.

This AFD also encompasses the 11 other articles that have split the guests year by year. Hbdragon88 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom-K@ngi e ^meep! 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - talk show guests isn't the same as plot. I'm sure there are all sorts of independant refs to back this up. Let the page live, and we can add that info. - Peregrine Fisher 23:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as directories that bring together trivial lists of people with little or nothing in common beyond having appeared on different episodes of the same television program. Next up will be a year-by-year List of The Today Show guests (really hoping that's a redlink). Otto4711 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia ain't paper, dood. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not paper" is not an excuse for allowing every article, otherwise there would be no AFDs at all. If the list fails policy, WP:NOT#PAPER doesn't save it. Otto4711 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. And I know I may be accused of making the "there are worse articles than this" argument, but there's plenty of precedent for maintaining lists of appearances in a notable broadcast or publication; see, e.g., List of people in Playboy 2000-present --Hyperbole 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you'll definitely be accused of making the "there are worse articles than this" argument. Look, it's happening right now! While I agree that these do not fall under the plot summary provision of WP:NOT they do fall under the directory provision, which bars "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." Otto4711 23:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial difference is that while a truly indiscriminate list, such as Actors who have blue eyes, would give no useful encyclopedic information about either category ("actors" or "blue eyes"), the List of people in Playboy 2000-present does give useful encyclopedic information about Playboy, and the List of The Daily Show guests does give useful encyclopedic information about The Daily Show. --Hyperbole 05:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the List of Playboy people articles do offer "useful and encyclopedic information." The simple fact that someone was interviewed for a publication is not in and of itself notable or encyclopedic. I also think it sets a bad precedent for the establishment of other equally poor lists of people who are connected only by the happenstance of being booked on the same talk show, regardless of how many months or years apart those appearances were. Otto4711 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peregrine Fisher above. This is far from a plot summary. Also, merely mentioning the relevance/"newsworthiness" of the guest's appearance (that is, what they're promoting) doesn't make it a soapbox. schi ^talk 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, been here, done that, same argument. For anyone that cares the last AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests and failed 0 to 11.

Re: WP:NOT#IINFO: this is not an indiscriminate list and absolute not a plot summary list (why did you say "essentially"?) because I don't see anything about the plot. Additionally, it is a list of facts and no different than, say, List of rivers of the Americas. Just because it happened on a TV show doesn't make it less of a fact than a list of occurances of a geographical feature?
Re: WP:NOT#SOAP: I see no reason why this is a soapbox. There is no POV advocacy, certainly no self-promotion, and hardly advertising.
Re: WP:NOT#DIR: A list of guests on a highly viewed and critically acclaimed show is being compared to a phone book?

I fail to see how the policies cited hold unless you start interpreting words very liberally ("essentially a plot summary" => "plot summary"; reason why the guest was on the show => "soapbox" = "phone book"). This nomination is reaching and probably trying to make a WP:POINT. Cburnett 01:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like a phonebook, a listing of names with no context, no attempt to connect to a larger idea or analysis, and nothing in common other than the vaguest relationship -- in this case, sitting and chatting with a comedian for five minutes on a basic-cable TV show. And this doesn't even rise to the "plot summary" level, so it's even worse. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but I don't see anything in WP:SK that indicates that this should be speedily kept. Other people have also voiced deletion, the nomination was not done purely to be disruptive, I am not banned, and this page is not a policy or guideline. Hbdragon88 02:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it like a hyperbole: I was making a point. Cburnett 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There was a !vote to delete. As for the !votes in favor, most of them were along the lines of "other bad articles and lists exist so this one should too" and "why pick on this list out of all the lists out there" and "people like it." Nothing of which should have been taken into consideration by the closing admin. As for the indiscriminate and directory-like aspects, I'd like to see someone explain what John Cleese and Pervez Musharraf have in common other than appearing on TDS (nine years apart and under different hosts). Otto4711 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to explain what Uganda's presidental election result and the coup d'etat in the philipines have in common except they happened in February of 2006? All of the year pages are even more indiscriminate and have even less tying them together. Cburnett 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep...went down last time, as it should this time. Cool idea. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 01:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still a context-free directory, just as context-free as speedy keep !votes based on "But it was kept before!". How's about an actual rationale? --Calton | Talk 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the burden is on the nominator. Second: how do any of the year in lists or day or year lists not fall in the same category of this? The only thing that binds them together is temporal coincidence? There is no theme to bind them together. Period. It's merely a list of facts that have no relation other than "the vaguest relationship." Cburnett 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most other shows on the 'pedia have episode lists/guides. Maybe rename the pages to "episodes" instead of "guests" and list the episodes' numbers (if there are any - I haven't a clue) with the guest that appeared that night. There have certainly been some notable guests on The Daily Show for it being a comedy program. I'm just not a big proponent for deleting articles. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important information that would not make sense to create individual categories for. I would like to see notable information next to each guest (topics covered, any notable reactions, etc.) --Ozgod 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What's the point? Why would anybody find this useful or interesting? I can't think of a serious purpose for this list, and I can't even think of an unserious reason why anyone would want to know who appeared on the show in the past. I just don't get it. This perfectly fits the "Wikipedia is not a directory" rule. I don't see much in the Keep side of the debate above other than, Hey, it fits the criteria" and "Other shows do it, why can't we?" My mind's open: What am I missing here? Noroton 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I don't see why anyone would find 1735 in poetry interesting or see that it has a purpose. (Note: Noroton created this article.) As Antepenultimate says: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cburnett 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hey, that's easy, Cburnett: People studying poets or who enjoy poetry(a) will want to know what was going on in poetry at the same time as the poet or poem they're reading because they may want to read those other poets or poems; it will eventually be a great tool for serious research and long before that it will be a great tool for browsing. Now what's your answer to my question?Noroton 02:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I admit there is some level of being a TV guide. "Oh, Jimmy Carter will be on next week...I can't miss that one." Second, there's the opposite issue: "Last month or two there was some woman on about stem cells. Who was that? And what book? Oh, Eve Herold and Stem Cell Wars." Third, by topic: "What was that one joke about Donald Rumsfeld resigning? Hmm, it was announced on 11/8/06 so...yup, it was probably on 11/9/06." Fourth: "When the heck was John Kerry on the show? 8/24/04." With tivos and DVR's catching on as well as TDS being on iTunes then it's not unimaginable to want to go back and find an episode. Cburnett 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I want to think about it more, but it's persuasive.Noroton 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw Walter Scheib on the show the other week it didn't really go into detail about why he was let go by the First Family. When I made a few minor edits to the page, I clicked his link and read a referenced website from the article and found out why. I found it interesting. Sorry I'm not as sophisticated as the poetry aficionados. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Wadems, on giving me the first actual answer to a sincere question. I accept your apology. And don't worry about it, being polite to strangers is more important than being sophisticated, so I'd work on that first. Hey, Cburnet, do you have an answer yet or do you just want to think about it a while longer? Noroton 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is doing exactly what any Wikipedia list should do: It is documenting information relevant to a subject without cluttering that subject's main article. Information is verifiable and the show is unquestionably notable. That said, let me get on my soapbox for a sec: As this is the article's second nomination, and the first nomination didn't even come close to succeeding in this article's deletion (a unanimous Keep, as a matter'a fact), I have to register a bit of annoyance at seeing this sort of second nomination. Deletionists shouldn't be encouraged to swing at their targeted piñatas until they finally hit them, IMHO. Oh, and Noroton: Take a look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Antepenultimate 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you don't get it, Antepenultimate. I wasn't saying I didn't happen to like it, I was asking why anybody would. I don't understand the purpose. I recommend keeping all sorts of things I don't like. I haven't seen a single reason given why anyone, including fans of the show, would want to look at this list. What part of "My mind's open: What am I missing here?" do you not understand? Noroton 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand pardons, Noroton. In fact it was your claim of open-mindedness that suggested to me that you would read beyond the first sentence of the link I provided. To avoid further confusion, here's what I was getting at: Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects. (per WP:IDONTLIKEIT). -- Antepenultimate 02:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me another thousand apologies, Antepenultimate. I never said the nature of the subject was unencyclopedic, I asked how it would be used or enjoyed by readers. Different question. And it was a question. (I usually favor inclusion and I usually argue against people who say something is "unencyclopedic"). And as for "in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects" what part of "Wikipedia is not a directory" don't you understand? I don't like simply standing on Wikipedia bureaucratic rules, but I also know they exist and I don't see how this article avoids violating it. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't official. Trying to build consensus is also an official policy. My asking a sincere question is part of that, your response doesn't help. By the way, what is the answer to: How will this article be useful or enjoyable to anybody? Noroton 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like another thousand apologies, Noroton, then you shall have them. I honestly was making an attempt to answer your "honest question" (despite said question being a footnote to an already-made decision to "Strong Delete"). If you're wondering why some people may wish this info kept, that may be part of it. That is all. -- Antepenultimate 02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I can't be open-minded if I don't agree with you from the start? If I put "strong disagree" in front of my comments, I can't be open minded? I don't know what the meaning of your last two sentences is, but after all this typing you don't seem to have an answer to: How will this article be useful or enjoyable to anybody? Noroton 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would likely be much more inclined to directly answer that question if you could provide a guideline stating that Wikipedia articles must be "useful" or "enjoyable." Anyway, I'm not really that interested in getting all worked up over this. Hopefully we have both been allowed to make our respective points in this arena of debate; if we disagree, then that is all there is to it. -- Antepenultimate 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you actually have an answer and you're just not gonna give it out unless you trade for my answer? The point to my question was practicality, not that there's a guideline saying anything in Wikipedia has to actually have some human purpose to it. I believe actual human readers should be served by Wikipedia because the purpose of a reference work is to serve readers, and all rules of Wikipedia should directly flow from that. Where the rules get in the way of serving readers, the rules should be changed or ignored and the service kept, not the other way around. That's why I usually advocate keeping articles rather than deleting them. But if I can see no use for an article, and if the article also violates a Wikipedia rule, then I favor deletion, and even "strong delete". And when I do that, because I just hate doing that, I look for ways my objections might be met and I try to state them in my comment. And sometimes they are met and I change my vote. What you're demonstrating here is that not only does this list violate the not a directory rule, but that there's no practical reason for violating that rule because in the real world there's no real use for this list. But one person's answered my question and others might.Noroton 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axe and grind is the way it has to be done; see LUEshi's seven nominations before policy finally triumphed over WP:ILIKEIT. Actually, I highly resent being called a deletionist, I'm more so of a mergist. AFD is the last resort when I don't think that the content can be merged or woudl be useful to merge. I prodded two of the year articles, but Cburnett disagreed. In this AFD, I obviously tried NOT to go the same route as the original nom did, who simply decalred that it was "unencyclopedic cruft"; I actually tried to provide a reason from WP:NOT. I see that I swung and missed here a bit in categorizing this as plot summary. Hbdragon88 02:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I was getting on my own little soapbox there, so I have no problem "agreeing to disagree" here. Double jeopardy policies have their weaknesses, but in general I would think that they could keep us from wasting our time on such "percieved" problems as this article, and could allow us to focus on the things around Wikipedia that really need fixing. -- Antepenultimate 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relevance and commentary can always be added to a plot summary, but once deleted no one would bother recreating it just to add commentary. Keep and let people add commentary and flag it as needing commentary. It would only be a directory if it contained all red links, blue links make it a navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where you got the idea that blue links make the difference between an article being a directory or not is an unfathomable mystery. Otto4711 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to insult another editor by demeaning them. WP:CIVIL. Cburnett 05:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT - lists like these would do happily on a fan wiki of some sort. --Action Jackson IV 04:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ::::Think of it like a [[hyperbole]]: I was making a point. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 ::*Wrong. There was a !vote to delete. As for the !votes in favor, most of them were along the lines of "other bad articles and lists exist so this one should too" and "why pick on this list out of all the lists out there" and "people like it." Nothing of which should have been taken into consideration by the closing admin. As for the indiscriminate and directory-like aspects, I'd like to see someone explain what [[John Cleese]] and [[Pervez Musharraf]] have in common other than appearing on TDS (nine years apart and under different hosts). [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-::::I would like you to explain what Uganda's presidental election result and the coup d'etat in the philipines have in common except they happened in February of [[2007]]?  All of the year pages are even more indiscriminate and have even less tying them together.  [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
+::::I would like you to explain what Uganda's presidental election result and the coup d'etat in the philipines have in common except they happened in February of [[2006]]?  All of the year pages are even more indiscriminate and have even less tying them together.  [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Speedy Keep'''...went down last time, as it should this time.  Cool idea. - [[User:Orangemonster2k1|SVRTVDude]] <sup>([[User_talk:Orangemonster2k1|Yell]] - [[Special:Contributions/Orangemonster2k1|Toil]])</sup> 01:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)