Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes

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 no consensus. There is much that is wrong with this article - unsourced, incomplete, no real world context - but these are editorial, rather than AfD, matters. The overriding policy consideration is WP:V. However, the information can be verified since it is available on various listings sites, for example here. Since the content is verifiable we next turn to the debate. Here there was a balance of views between those who consider that the page is unencyclopaedic and unnecessary and those whose view is that it is notable and should be expanded. In my judgement, neither camp won the day on force of argument. The Arbcom injunction quite clearly does not apply in this instance, however there are analogies and the Arbcom decision may contain guidance that could be indicative. Consequently, I suggest that any relisting await the Arbcom decision. Meanwhile, one possible editorial action would be to boldly merge the page into The Steve Wilkos Show where it would fit well and enable the list to be read in context. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes

Has no source of where the episodes come from, this will just be cruft, most talk shows dont have list of episodes as it will be a very long list. Usually talk shows have recurring episodes not a list of all their episodes. This is an on going show that will have more shows in the future and will be hard to list them all. Should be deleted, and/or sort of merged into the article. TrUCo⁹31¹ 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - The topic is verifiable, as sources for the episodes are out there and easy to find, which brings into question whether the nomination is being made in good faith. It's a nationally syndicated show, and therefore not cruft. Other talk shows' coverage on Wikipedia don't dictate coverage for this one. Being "hard to list them all" is both false and irrelevant. Nominator doesn't seem to be familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and he really shouldn't be nominating things for deletion until he is. It is clear that the nominator doesn't like the list (or the show? And neither do I), but that doesn't matter. I suggest the nominator withdraw the nomination. The Transhumanist 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I am not nominating this because I dont like the show or article. I just think that listing every episode since its debut till present is redundant, this will be like listing every episode of Jerry Springer till today. TrUCo⁹31¹ 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)*Comment/question I thought pending the outcome of the ongoing ArbCom discussion on TV episodes and characters, that an injunction was in place for NO deletion of these articles until the ArbCom decision was finalized? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe this falls under the injunction, yes. I've so flagged it. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Arbcom not withstanding (and since this deals with a talk show with real people as guests I don't think it should be applied to this article), this is talkshow cruft. It also goes back only to November and is just an indiscrimiate list of titles without show summaries. There is no reason for this article to exist at all and no one remembers a talk show topic even days after they've watched the show. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  _{(Arbcom application has since been reverted) Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)}

• Umm. So what if the article does not have summarys. People can build it up eventually, but that most likely won't happen. Mythdon (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a list of talk show topics right now. They pretty much rotate every three months and then blur together after awhile. There is no need for an episode guide for a talk show. Nate • (chatter) 09:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen no policy or guideline that prohibits talk show episode lists. Mythdon (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because there is no need for a policy because of common sense. If we had List of The Montel Williams Show episodes, List of The Phil Donahue Show episodes, List of Nightline episodes or List of The Jerry Springer Show episode articles, they would easily each top over a MB of content; note that 32kb is the limit of an article that though not enforced, is advisable for article length. TV shows (or weekly talk shows like Real Time with Bill Maher)work because there's 22-30 episodes a year, but talk shows just do not work at all as far as episode lists. Just imagine four years from now if we had this article up with all of these topics; it would be way too long and uncontrollable to deal with. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Then when the show gets bigger, why not make 6 seperate episode lists per season like this List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 1-50, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 51-100, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 101-150, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 151-200), List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 201-250), List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 251-300). Is that good. Mythdon (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is redundant. Talk shows aren't really suppose to have a list of episodes, just a section in the article with recurring theme of shows as sometimes the episode names/themes repeat like on The Jerry Springer Show and on Maury (TV Show). TrUCo⁹31¹ 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Six differing articles for one season of the show is exactly why it's cruft, you can't control this list. Better to just describe the basic topics the show covers within the parent article in an overview rather than listing each topic in this article. Nate • (chatter) 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• No offense, but from a cursory glance, the arguments above seem alarmingly close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't watch Jerry Springer, or Oprah, or any show like that. But, the arguments that this will taked up too much disk space don't really wash with me.

The real question should be, I believe, if this list is verifiable and maintainable.

Proponent says it is. I don't see the opponents offering any reason to believe it isn't.

I think Iridology and homeopathy are nonsense. But I don't dispute that verifiable, neutral, maintainable articles can be written about those topics. Similarly verifiable neutral articles can be written about TV shows. All kinds of TV shows. Even those that some people think are beneath notice.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Transhumanist. And reguarding the comment above, we should not have that many articles. This one list will do just fine. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Complete and total talkshowcruft. A mention of frequently covered topic might be a good idea, but not a list of EVERY episode with a short summary. What's next a list of NBC Nightly News shows with what was covered on each day? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per current ArbCom injunction. --Willow Wait (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It was confirmed that, that injunction does not apply here. There is no sentence that says "list" of episodes, only articles of "an episode".--TrUCo⁹31¹ 11:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete per Mrschimpf, Mythdon, and Wildthing61476 --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep until current ArbCom injunction is resolved. --Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC) if that is the case (as I should be more diligent when researching these afd's) then I change my vote to Very Weak Keep as I have scanned WP:NOT up and down and can find nothing specifically against keeping this. Personally, I want to say, "DELETE" as I agree 100% with user:Wildthing61476 but per WP, I must say keep.--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • sidenote-this article still needs references (as that may be an inclusionary deal-breaker) because all we have to go on is the good faith of the author.--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - it has already been established that the injunction you cite is not relevant to this topic. It is about articles on specific episodes of programs. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep per Transhumanist. The list needs expansion and summaries but that is an incidental issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- as explained above. Geo Swan (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per TT/JoshZ. Clearly a notable and relevant topic. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Wildthing61476 above. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I was going to close this, but really, really can't bring myself to, as it would kill me to close an article this rotten as a keep and nobody identified wholly why it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a directory of episode titles. Wikipedia is not your TV Guide. This list of titles has no encyclopaedic value; it is wholly useless, and does not aid understanding of the show. Note the Arbcom injunction is not relevant to this AFD (it's referring to episode articles, not pointless lists of talk show broadcast dates) so anyone saying "keep" because of that isn't really making a strong argument. Neıl ☎ 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is no more related to the arbcom injunction about fictional characters and episodes than I am. (Because we are both non-fictional). That being said, it is utterly unmaintainable and very much a TV guide list that simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I see no consensus here. Anybody else? Bearian (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is no consensus at the moment. I would of course favor a relist instead of a close, but I'll admit I'm biased and won't be relisting myself... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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.