Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, there are plenty of suggestions for how the article should be improved but there is a weak consensus that this is an appropriate article is some form. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who[edit]

At it's last deletion debate, it was proposed that the article be trimmed down and references given. Little of either has been actioned, the article remains rather bloated and free of all but a handful of references. Other than that, I'm not sure what it does for our understanding of Doctor Who, or what role it fulfils on Wikipedia where other fan based wikis exist. The article lists people who have been described as celebrities (by who?) or notable else where (in which case, what does it have to do with Doctor Who?). If it described actors and actresses who used Doctor Who as a springboard for later fame, or where a guest star created an episode or story of note, I might see the point. Otherwise, it seems to serve no purpose when cast lists have been created on the individual pages for Doctor Who stories. Alastairward (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hugely crufty, but reasonably verifiable. I can't see any reason to remove it.--Troikoalogo (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hugely crufty, I can't see any reason to have created it, nor to keep it. What does it do that the cast list on each episode doesn't? In what way do the actors and actresses on it count as notable or celebrities in each case? Alastairward (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no criteria for the list at all. For example, Paul O'Grady's role was a celebrity appearance, but not particulalry notable. Vice-versa for Bleach. The nom makes a case on how to make the article better, but even that may be unable to be done verifiably. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I think the article is great in terms of "real world" material that everyone seems to want out of fiction. I think it's poor because the criteria (notable or celebrity?) is poor. I'd just go with notable. Article could use some serious cleaning, but that isn't a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a little too fancrufty. DonQuixote (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. The article mentions why a certain person listed is considered a celebrity and the primary source is enough to verify they were in this episode. You might want to review the list to filter out people who were not celebrities (=famous for work that was not Dr. Who) when the serial in question was produced but that is no reason to delete everything. So#Why ^{review me!} 22:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, SoWhy, is the point of this list then to indicate people who are considered famous? With regards Doctor Who, what is the link between their fame and the show? How does this add to our understanding of the series when minor characters already have a number of lists already dedicated to them? Alastairward (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment No, it isn't, I have not said so. The Wikipedia articles about those people should indicate whether they are to be considered famous by their own right rather than because of their work with Dr. Who. So I think we need to weed out those who were a.) not famous at the time of the serial in question or b.) were famous due to being in Dr. Who (you wouldn't for example see Peter Davison on that list). But if they were/are famous, as indicated by their Wikipedia entries (which in turn have to cite sources anyway!) then they should be on that list. Also, you can get the relevant information from the serial's entries, like for example Voyage of the Damned for Kylie Minogue. The list serves the purpose to easily identify the celebrity appearances and is thus viable. Btw, I know that WP:OSE is not really a valid point but I think List of guest stars on The Simpsons would have to be nominated for AfD as well if this AfD was to be considered a valid attempt. So#Why ^{review me!} 07:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment, SoWhy, I only asked, I never suggested I was putting words in your mouth. With regards the Simpsons episode, I don't have all day (unfortunately!) to dedicate to Wikipedia, and mostly clean up or edit articles I'm interested in. Besides which, this list isn't even just guest appearances but "Celebrity and notable" guest appearances, which adds a bit of personal bias to the mix. It would make more sense if it was a simple list of guest appearances, but even that is quite unwieldy and of dubious notability as an article in its own right.Alastairward (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment Sorry then, it sounded like it. My mistake! First off, noone wants you to do it and let me say thank you for all of us for your work. Cleanup is tedious but someone needs to do it and it's great you are doing it. Then, secondly, I think WP:OSE is not much of an argument anyway, I was just pointing it out. So yes, you are correct that the list needs to be cleaned from all entries of "dubious notability" (that's what I said anyway) but not deleted :-) So#Why ^{review me!} 14:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup- SoWhy makes some good points. It can be weeded out to remove the extra fluff, but this article in no way merits deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - I guess the question is notable to whom? Until that is defined it is meerly an editor's point of view who is notable Fasach Nua (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as before, this is mostly a list of actors who were in the show, and were also in other things. No distinction is made between ordinary actors who applied for various roles, and established celebrities carefully chosen for their star value - this happened a lot in the show in the eighties, but no distinction is made here. Chuck out all the jobbing actors and transfer what's left to relevant episode/season articles. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article may need cleaning up and referencing. But I see no arguement here that it shouldn't exist. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs cleaning up and references, but I think there is some worth to the article. A year or so ago, I spent a long time improving it - building tables, etc. - before that it was a largely an illegible list. I gave up on the article myself because I became unsure how one can judge fame and notability in individual cases. Wider discussion is needed. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Famous actor Y about to appear in the next episode of TV Show X" is exactly the sort of thing that people write about, so at least in principle this passes Wikipedia:Notability; if individual entries are questionable, that's not a reason to delete the whole list. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, perhaps a retitling of the article to something along the lines of "List of Guest Actors/Celebrities" rather than notable. Things like Only Fools and Horses, Emmerdale are well regarded programmes (in terms of awards/popularity), but there are people who may not know the significance of the theatre only actors (since more people watch tv in general than go to the theatre). Also, some of the tv programmes, such as Sooty, are questionable, as Sooty is aimed at viewers who are considerably younger than readers of this article (and therefore watchers of Sooty would not be interested in this). Also some of the "appearances" are questionable, some last less than 2 minutes (Paul O'Grady for example), whereas some of the appearances are considerably longer than that, and in the case of the Classic (pre 2005) serials, may appear in more than one episode. I think the problem is mainly to do with notable, one person's view of notable may vary than another's. If a blanket title is applied, then there is no need for deletion. Also, if you have seen someone in an episode, and you know you have seen them in something else (come on we've all had that) then this list is extremely handy rather than searching 101 links to find what you have seen that particular person in.Garej (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is a celebrity, how do you WP:PROVEIT? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.