Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not indicate notability, trivia, no reliable, published, third party sources. Re: prod removal/talk, see also wp:OSE - notable, sourced guest info can go into the show's article. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-25t05:03z 05:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Notability not asserted. Listcruft. Kiwikibble (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know what would be needed to "assert notability." More to the point, Jeandré's explanation seems to be flawed. It says that there are no reliable, published, third party sources. In fact, as I explain in the article's Discussion, the whole list is sourced to the Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! website. As for "notability": why would this article be less notable than List of Monk Episodes, Bewitched DVD Releases, or List of Two and a Half Men episodes? Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! has had an impressive variety of guests, including Patrick Fitzgerald, Dave Barry, and Jim Webb, in addition to many others. To me, that indicates notability. Wikipedia performs a useful service by collecting the guests together in an easily accessible list. There would not be room in the Wait Wait… Don't Tell Me! article to include a list of all guests over the 12-year history of the show.--HughGRex (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
    • A third party source means it's independent from the people producing it, NPR is not a third party to an NPR show.
    • wp:OSE: "That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and will typically be dismissed". Lots of vandalism/trivia/copyright violations exist for instance, that is not a reason to keep other vandalism/trivia/copyright violations.
      • Such articles are very common in Wikipedia, because they perform the service of being an easy source of information that some people apparently find useful. Those who seek to rid Wikipedia of such innocuous technical violations of a rule that they hold dear will find themselves very busy indeed, having volunteered to play the role of Sisyphus.--HughGRex (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A blog may be a better place for this than an encyclopedia if there is no significant coverage in reliable, published, third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-27t12:26zv
      • Please note that these articles' raison d'etre is that they were requested by editors to the Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! article. See [1]. If these articles are deleted, we will thereby open up the same Pandora's box of worms that these articles were created to close.--HughGRex (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there is a source. I'm not sure whether the lists really are notable enough to keep (as long as we delete or keep all of them), but precedent with television episodes would seem to imply that the article can be kept. (N.B: HughGRex posted a deletion notice on my talk page with a statement opposing deletion, but I don't think it was excessive, and it did not influence this vote) Bart133 t c @ 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I disagree. I think that the argument can be made that if there is a page like this for The Colbert Report with NO third party sources, then there is room for a Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! page like this. If you want to delete this page then you'll have to delete this one: List_of_The_Daily_Show_episodes and all of its sub-pages. each of those appearances, by your measure, is not notable. Most guests appear on The Daily Show without "credible news articles" being written about it, but they go on that page with no source listed. At least I bothered to give a source when I started the ones for Wait Wait. The only difference is that this is a very popular radio show instead of TV and you've never heard of it yourself. That's no reason to delete these articles. If this article exists: List of MXC episodes with no sources, I think Wikipedia, as a community, has come to the decision that these sorts of articles are OK. At any rate, the info on these pages is correct (except for 2003 where someone reposted 2004, i'm in the middle of fixing it as we speak) and it does not harm anyone. It's not spam, vandalism or overtly non-encyclopaedic. In fact it's perfectly mainstream. The only difference is that it's one of the first radio shows to get this treatment and I think that that's why you are treating it this way.
We are not saying keep this article because there are others like it. We are saying keep this article because there are many, many like it which are much more high profile and much more visited and are generally accepted. This is not the same as saying keep this vandalism because there is other vandalism. In that case, we can all agree that vandalism is bad and few will ever argue with you for taking it down. But in this case, just go and try to delete the obsessively detailed, completely unsourced List of The Colbert Report episodes (2005), and see what happens. The backlash you would receive is there because these types of pages are accepted by the community, whether they adhere to its strict rules or not.
-The Talking Sock talk contribs 01:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[2] -- The Talking Sock talk 02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unref tag put on List of The Colbert Report episodes (2005), List of The Daily Show episodes#cite_note-0 is an USA Today ref and I put a Morefootnotes tag on it, and an Unref tag on List of The Daily Show guests (2005). All of these very likely has reliable, published, third party sources. If anyone thinks there aren't any RP3 sources for these, they're free to nominate them for deletion.
    • I've proposed the deletion of List of MXC episodes because of its lack of sources and all the red links on there - there probably aren't any RP3 sources for it. If that also leads to deprodding, AfD, discussions without any RP3 sources being added, it should also be deleted. wp:v: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
    • These non notable articles can harm people when they're vandalized with libel but no one spots it. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-29t07:22z
      • This last is either an implausible or an irrelevant argument in the current case. The idea that someone might be libeled because their name appeared on a list of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests, sourced from the show itself, requires quite a confluence of imagination and ignorance of what constitutes libel.--HughGRex (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was in reply to Sock's "it does not harm anyone", but non notable article not sourced to reliable, published, third party sources harm people all the time. This is one of the things I do here: in response to complaints to the foundation, I try to remove the libel in unsourced and/or incorrectly sourced articles that aren't watched because they're not notable enough. wp:v's "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." trumps the wish to turn the encyclopedia into a blog with millions of non notable articles. -- Jeandré, 2009-06-01t05:35z
  • Delete. Nothing makes this concept notable. If someone's appearance on the show is relevant to their life in any way, it can be mentioned in that person's article. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subjects of the list are not notable because of their appearance on the show, so the subject does not inherit notability from the guests. Malinaccier (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for any list of The Daily Show guests, but those pages exist and are accepted by the community. -The Talking Sock talk contribs 04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This is a bit like lists of episodes articles. I think it's a reasonable fork from the original page. Shadowjams (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tan | 39 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the guests pretty much define each episode, this is essentially equivalent to an episode list.--RadioFan (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Wait_Wait..._Don%27t_Tell_Me!_guests_(2005)&oldid=1153708930"