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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:20Z

List of The Daily Show guests[edit]

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]

Keep it. Contains useful info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.57.241.67 (talk) 05:03, 19 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]

Do not argue with me, you will not change my mind. WP:NOT#IINFO is not a valid deletion reason either. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe my arguments will reach someone who isn't so proud of being closed-minded. Hope does spring eternal. BTW, I didn't cite WP:NOT#IINFO. I cited WP:NOT#DIR. Otto4711 23:29, 15 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]

Nothing gives more information about the content of a broadcast or publication than an objective listing of its contents (as opposed to a plot summary, which is an inherently subjective listing). The encyclopedic point of looking at such lists isn't to suggest a connection between the people involved; it's to give information about the contents of the broadcast or publication. It may say nothing about John Cleese and Pervez Musharraf that they both appeared on The Daily Show, but it most definitely says something about The Daily Show itself. --Hyperbole 05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it says that TDS booked a particular guest on a particular day. To which my response is a politely stifled yawn. Talk shows book guests. This fact is not encyclopedic information. Otto4711 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gives information about what kind of guests The Daily Show books--information which any hypothetical future scholar researching The Daily Show would want to know. The only sense in which it is "not encyclopedic" is that the information could theoretically be condensed - which is why the policy that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so perfectly applies. --Hyperbole 07:09, 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]

The year articles are not nominated for deletion at this time. Their existence is irrelevant to this nomination. If the best you can do to defend keeping this article is to point to another article you think is just as bad, that's really not a very compelling argument. Otto4711 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does to the extent that I know of no AFD nominations for them which implies greater community support for the existence of such articles. It is implicit consensus for their encyclopedic value. This is not just an example of "another article is here so this one should stay" because of the prevalence of these year articles. If the community did not have an implicit consensus (read: no nominations for literally thousands of articles) that they have encyclopedic value then they would have been deleted long ago. It goes to show that the larger community does not agree that these types of lists are unencyclopedic. Cburnett 13:17, 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]

The day and year lists are not up for deletion and the existence of any other article is irrelevant to the existence of these. If you feel the day and year articles violate policy you are free to nominate them, although my feeling is they'd be kept. Otto4711 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline with your interpretation of policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007. I'm interested to hear how you think 2007 is not an indiscriminate list of events but this is. Cburnett 15:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I predicted, kept per WP:SNOW. Otto4711 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I predicted: no one (not even you) agreed that the list of facts which were bound to each other by no stronger of a relationship than the list of daily show guests was vehemently kept. Cburnett 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't begin to imagine what "vehemently kept" might mean. I can't think what the keeping of 2007 on the basis of WP:SNOW has to do with this nomination. Otto4711 07:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not going to be your dictionary and critical thinker for you. Cburnett 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, why would you try to be those things for me when you're not willing to be them for yourself? Otto4711 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**First, the burden is on the nominator. Noooo, the burden is on the article creator to justify its existence and adherence to Wikipedia inclusion standards. And "other crap exists" -- even granting the premise of something being crap, which I don't -- is not an actual argument. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burden on the creator implies ownership. (Besides, the creator is not always the only editor.) Additionally, the nominator has to justify why they are listing it (step two requires a reason). It would be absurd for a nominator to just list an article without a reason. To get philosophical, if the burden is not on the nominator then every article should be up for AFD the second it's created and, ultimately, every article should have an AFD. And to that extent there is no box for a user to justify why the article was created. And, you know, if the burden really was on the creator then creation of an AFD SHOULD require the creator be both notified and given first chance to respond to the AFD. All things considered: nothing plays to put the burden on the creator. Cburnett 05:26, 19 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]

Agree with Ozgod. Actually, I found this page today while searching for a name of a Daily Show guest, because I couldn't find the guest's name on the TDS's home website. Podbay 23:41, 18 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]

Hi, Noroton. Another reason I can contribute: it might be interesting to people who want to study the political use of the media (e.g., who has appeared on the show, who hasn't, the timing of appearances--before/after elections, and so on). Now granted, it's not a scholarly article on the topic, but I could see it catching someone's fancy. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:20, 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]

Oh please. Otto4711 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Richard Arthur Norton had this specifically in mind, and it doesn't make the direct "red vs. blue link" distinction, but perhaps the foillowing excerpt from the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) MOS entry could be relevant to Otto's concerns: Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, list of Christians doesn't include your neighbour, because she's not notable for her Christianity, she doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and she may never have. However, it might well include St. Peter. (Emphasis added and Wikilinks removed) (original at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people). -- Antepenultimate 05:28, 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]

Delete, preferably by moving to a Daily Show wiki or fansite. Note that I voted to keep the article last time, but I'm changing my mind; now it really is just a laundry list of celebrities. I totally agree with User:Hyperbole that "It may say nothing about John Cleese and Pervez Musharraf that they both appeared on The Daily Show, but it most definitely says something about The Daily Show itself." However, the same thing could be said in one sentence in the Daily Show article itself. How about, "The Daily Show attracts a diverse cross-section of celebrities, from John Cleese to Pervez Musharraf (the only sitting head of state to appear on the show to date)."? A table of five hundred celebrities is not encyclopedic. --Quuxplusone 05:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there are no valid reasons for deletion.

"This article fails WP:NOT#INFO. Specifically, this article is essentailly a plot summary of of every episode (#7)" -- plot summary? I don't see any plot summary. I see a list of names of individuals. -- Black Falcon 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It also fails WP:NOT#SOAP in that it lists what each guest was promoting when they appeared on this show." -- WP:NOT#SOAP applies to Wikipedia editors, not the subjects of articles. Is it a violation of WP:NOT#SOAP to note the Catholic Church's position on abortion?

There are, however, reasons for keeping, namely that it meets WP:LIST (it is informative and aids navigation). -- Black Falcon 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete canonical listcruft. There is no encyclopaedic topic "Daily Show Guest", therefor a list of them is arbitrary. Plus it's a directory. Plus it's of no interest other than to fans. Plus it's the job of the Daily Show's webmasters. Plus it;s all sourecd from primary sources, so is largely WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Wikipedia Is Not Paper. This is not a plot summary because The Daily Show interviews are not fictitious. This is useful information to many people - I use this page at least once a week. This information is verifiable and notable.--Pigu 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I think that the article is very useful to catalog who has been on the show, and it does not contain any actual plot summaries. Fernandobouregard 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the articles form a record of events in the show, which, to an extent, represents literary, cinematic, political, and other popular output of the time. Who appears and why has a meaning greater than a simple list. Furthermore, I think the reasons given for deletion misinterpret the policies. Al001 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe this is useful and while the 'Wiki is not paper' is debatable this is useful information. MrMacMan 07:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced list that adheres to all policies. Nom's argument regarding plot summaries and soap boxes is wildly off-base. --JJay 23:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In case these lists do get deleted, I have mirrored much of the content here http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/The_Daily_Show. Copysan 00:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps an argument could be made against the article, but WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#SOAP are not it. --shadytrees 04:43, 19 February 2007 (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.