Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:12, 25 August 2011

List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Listcruft: it's a well-known show, and if a person is important enough to be on the show, they are most likely going to be well known already. There is no reason to devote a list to just those who have appeared on the show. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Piers Morgan Tonight guests and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien (2nd nomination). Gurt Posh (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I don't think any of these should be deleted. They are very interesting on who was on these shows from the start to present. Okay they are long, but when I had put these in the main article they weren't as long as this page. Now that section with the Guest Hosts and Halftime Reporters will not have any purpose if there isn't a section of past and present Guests. When this show aired in 2007 there were not a lot of people that watched this show until now and I had liked to know who was on it when it started. This show offers famous and not famous people which I come to follow now since they appeared on the show. This list does not have the most well-known people.Ltlane777 (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Lists like this are common place on wikipedia , I like them and I think that they should be kept. Here's a list of some:

Fodient (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the argument for deletion isn't based on the precedent of other, similar lists existing, but on whether it's ever a good idea to have lists like these. If the consensus is that lists of guests on shows are not suitable articles for inclusion, then the articles you list should also be considered for deletion. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia is for basic information on notable topics. This is way too much detail. Better to have one article on each show with a link to the official site of the show or a fan site where more detailed information can be found. BigJim707 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like lists. I often like lists more than articles. They're a quick informative reference. This list and ones like it give readers a quick look as to what to expect along the lines of guests the show offers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Racingstripes (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops sorry, thought I signed it.Racingstripes (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As already mentioned, other TV series have articles naming their guests. Further, Red Eye has quite a few regular guests, making the guest list especially relevant to the show. -- Evans1982 (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is doing exactly what any Wikipedia list should do: It is documenting information relevant to a notable subject without cluttering that subject's main article, which was my main concern when I saw this list being originally formed in the main Red Eye article. I was very happy when an separate article was created to house it. I was even happier when it was greatly improved using List of The Daily Show guests as a format by Racingstripes (talk). The information is all verifiable with the reliable references listed and the show itself which spawned this list is unquestionably notable. It meets WP:LIST in that it is informative about the types of guests on the show, which aids researchers in quickly determining the demographic of the show's guests and/or the show's network, and also aids quick/efficient navigation to learn more about those guests. Who appears on a particular show and why has a meaning far greater than a simple list of names. Any future arguments that the nature of the subject/list is not encyclopedic should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies/guidelines against articles on such subjects/lists (from: WP:IDONTLIKEIT).--RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, in the case of 'TV guest lists', the violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS be damned in favor of the much needed WP:NoDoubleStandards and WP:HowToOvercomeWikiDemographicBias, because the Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists (aka List of The Daily Show guests) has existed and been maintained as an excellent standard precedent for many years without deletion and has inspired many other 'TV guest lists' (many of which have been selectively deleted, IMHO, by editors deliberately ignoring (with a Wiki-wink-of-approval) the existence of the Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists). The strong community support for List of The Daily Show guests and its acceptance as a 'Category' with 16 related articles proves that the larger Wiki community does not really agree that these types of 'TV guests lists' are WP:LISTCRUFT. Otherwise, this massive, conspicuous Holy Grail would have been deleted "a long, long time ago in the Land of Wiki."--RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to improve Wiki and to stop all the unnecessary debates and waste of time which occurs every single time a 'TV guest list' is nominated for deletion, a new clear policy needs to be developed to allow 'TV guest lists' which follow the 'excellent standard precedent' set by List of The Daily Show guests. If not, then I suggest my arguments above for KEEP (some of which I retrieved from the nomination for deletion of 'The Daily Show guest lists') be posted on every 'discussion page' of 'TV show guest list' articles, so that less experienced Wiki editors can better defend their particular 'TV guest lists' in the future from more experienced editors who selectively nominate the easy "low-hanging fruit" while ignoring (with a Wiki-wink-of-approval) the Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists (aka the Category List of The Daily Show guests and it's 16 related articles below), which are all being cited as precedent setting 'TV guest list' formats across Wiki:

List of The Daily Show guests (2011)

Many editors often point first to the existence of the above Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists when their TV guest list is nominated for deletion, which happened here also. And what arguments are used to discredit some of their arguments to KEEP? Violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:Listcruft and/or WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. But somehow (wink) when it comes to the above Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists, these same policy arguments never have resulted in deletion...ever. And we all know they never will because of the "Wiki-wink-of-approval" toward this particular article coupled with the demographic of Wiki editors being heavily skewed toward the political left which always votes to KEEP it, no matter how many other similar 'TV guest lists' are deleted.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I find it very interesting indeed the editors who selectively choose the "low-hanging fruit" of 'TV guest lists' for deletion somehow just never get around to nominating the massive Holy Grail for deletion, which if successful would eliminate with one single nomination the long-standing precedent source for most of the other 'TV guest lists' now being created. So editors continue to use the above Holy Grail as a precedent to create more 'TV guest lists' thinking it is acceptable policy on Wiki to do so, then they become understandably upset and disillusioned with Wiki when their guest list is deleted using violations of WP:Listcruft, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and/or WP:IJUSTLIKEIT.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would not surprise me if many editors have left Wiki in total disgust at the unfairness dealt them, or worse become vandals, which IMHO Wiki has a bad habit of creating in unacceptable numbers. That fact alone should "wake Wiki up" that something isn't working here, but Wiki goes on ignoring the real causes of these problems. This should concern fair-minded editors who really want to stop the increasing number of editors leaving Wiki and stop this double-standard unfairness here, which often masquerades behind some Wiki-policy which more experienced editors know how to exploit. IMHO, there is much need for WP:NoDoubleStandards and WP:HowToOvercomeWikiDemographicBias. That would be real change that would really help Wiki keep editors by acknowledging real causes of problems on Wiki and showing them there is real concern that fairness be shown across all Wiki articles. Good day. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's neither helpful nor accurate to use words like "selective", "wink", "bias" and "double-standards" here. I have no idea what you mean by "Holy Grail" above, either.

The main Daily Show guest-list article has been nominated three times:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests in 2005 (consensus "keep")
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable guests appearing on The Daily Show (2nd nomination) in 2006 (consensus merge, and the redirect was later deleted)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests (2nd nomination) in 2007 (no consensus).

There's no evidence of selective deletion or inclusion for that list: it's been deleted and re-created. Editors simply seem not to have come to a consensus about that list yet. I favor its deletion, but recognise that guidelines on inclusion for lists like these are pretty hazy at the moment. So before I start off a useless fourth AFD for that list, I'd like to establish some precedent for merging or deleting poorly-sourced lists like this one. As I've said in the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity guests on The Howard Stern Show (2nd nomination), lists like these are a magnet for adding unreferenced additions, until the list becomes worse than useless. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (Wiki translation: "Shhh! We don't talk about those issues on Wiki.") It seems I hit upon the two elephant-sized issues which are taboo to speak of on Wiki. I used those very accurate and helpful words/issues exactly as I intended. I know I am 'Tilting at Wiki-windmills' here, but there is much need for WP:NoDoubleStandards and WP:HowToOvercomeWikiDemographicBias. These two go hand-in-hand and are two of the reasons editors are leaving. There, I said it in the spirit of trying to help Wiki. Deal with it, or stay in denial. Wiki's choice. Those two elephants and the damage they create on Wiki are not getting any smaller by denying they exist. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am talking about them, and I clearly said that I favor deletion of the Daily Show lists, so all this talk of "taboos" is complete nonsense. Please stop attempting to infer bias and selectivity on my part. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a request that the reference quality be improved; with that, this list would have my strong keep support. In my opinion, this is going to be either a list or a category, and the precedent is list, given other notable sourced talk show guest lists which have been kept. Consensus is formed by active discussion, tacit discussion, as well as precedent.

I disagree with the nom trotting out unrelated prior AfD 'delete' results, which were not valid precedent, since they were based on 'no references' whereas this one is not.
I disagree with the trotting out of prior AfD results as examples, and the simultaneous rejection of valid counterexamples as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Dirty pool. Either both examples and counterexamples are allowed in AfD, or neither.

Improvement is possible, which would be prevented by deletion:

A serious attempt has been made here to provide sources, flawed though some of them may be (unofficial YouTube videos are not good sources - find better ones).

Some of the guests have been fairly unique "gets" - the list could be improved by identifying which guests appeared only or first on Red Eye.

On guideline: the list of guests clearly outgrew the show article, and it is quite normal, per WP:LIST to spawn such lists to separate articles, as has been done here. Its inclusion criteria are clear, as only notable guests are listed.

Problems with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: it assumes bad faith - that other articles are "crap" if they are kept. This is pointedly counter to a core Wikipedia value, of WP:AGF. Also, it disallows the reference to consensus made elsewhere; this is a flaw. To be sure, we should focus most of our attention on issues related to this article, but we should not be blinkered to the history of prior and related consensus.

--Lexein (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS was not cited before you mentioned it. I don't think it should exist as a redirect, or at the very least shouldn't be linked to on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?, precisely for the reasons you suggest. I did mention WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS though, and that was argued against by RedEyedCajun above. I'm not assuming bad faith on anyone's part, nor am I assuming political bias, and I hope for the same assumptions to be made by any editors tempted to think that this is being nominated for deletion for political reasons. Gurt Posh (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the intention. Unfortunately OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a euphemism for the more obviously deprecatory (and more frequently used) OTHERCRAPEXISTS version, and I've always objected to its use in any form by any name. More importantly, that particular ATA, by any name, is typically used to stifle discussion of accumulated consensus as expressed in precedent. As stated, I agree with the idea of focusing most attention on the current article's issues, but other applicable consensus matters; heck, that's how most policies, guidelines and essays are arrived at. --Lexein (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And speaking of "dirty pool", this post that another editor made to your talk page that brought you to this discussion looks an awful lot like campaigning. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it was just me, doesn't seem like much of a canvas. If this list had had no attempt at sourcing, and no similar lists had survived AfD, I would have opted for Delete. Generic complaint about difficulty of being notified of AfDs I'm interested in without having my watchlist overwhelmed by traffic. --Lexein (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked him or anyone to come comment here, and was surprised he did. I wanted him to get interested in doing something about the policies I suggested because I know for a fact he is very concerned about editors leavng Wiki and deletions in general. I think my reasons for contacting him are very clear on his talk page. Nothing nefarious there, only my stated concerns in general about Wiki. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gurt Posh, your stated real intention is to change the "hazy policy" by deleting as many 'TV guest lists' as you can NOW to establish a large enough "precedent" (i.e.WP:OtherStuffNoLongerExistsThanksToGurtPosh) that will then somehow allow you to go delete the long-standing more popular 'TV guest lists'. But you want it both ways here: you say deleted 'TV guest lists' are precedent setting (citing 'Conan O'Brien-2nd nomination', 'Piers Morgan', 'The Howard Stern Show-2nd nomination') when it suites your purpose to convince editors to vote DELETE here; but then you claim other existing 'TV guest lists' are not precedent setting and can't be used to convince editors to vote KEEP here (citing violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]). You are contradicting yourself. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In June 2011, Gurt Posh (talk) stated [here] "...it's noted that there is a List of The Daily Show guests. There is indeed a whole category: Category:Lists of The Daily Show guests. I would argue for deletion of all of those too." I do not accept his contradictory explanation that because one 2007 AfD on List of The Daily Show guests resulted in 'no consensus' he just didn't want to nominate it again now because consensus is unclear now and "the policy is hazy". But he has no problem now using this same "hazy policy" to delete the "low-hanging fruit" of 'TV guest lists' which also have "unclear consensus" because of their own past failed nominations for deletion, like his August 2011 nomination of List of celebrity guests on The Howard Stern Show(2nd nomination) which had a 'no consensus' outcome in 2006. He somehow knows consensus is clear there now, but not on List of The Daily Show guests. He claims "Editors simply seem not to have come to a consensus about the (List of The Daily Show guests) yet." Yes they have and that is the real reason nobody (including Gurt Posh) dares nominate it again for deletion now. The past four years of acceptance by the larger Wiki community, along with long-ago failed attempts to delete it, is an implicit vote for STRONG KEEP and everyone knows this. The List of The Daily Show guests will remain forever and grow larger (fine with me) while similar 'TV guest lists' often get deleted (Wiki unfair double-standard in action) without any guidance/help (before nomination) to suggest improvements using the List of The Daily Show guests as an excellent precedent setting format. These obvious substantial contradictions are the reasons I questioned his motives here. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone" knows no such thing, and there's no implicit vote for a STRONG KEEP simply because they haven't been deleted yet. There's no conspiracy here, no matter how many times you try to make the mud stick by repeated throws. As I've already said, there's no point in nominating it for a fourth time until policy on guest lists is clarified. Discussions like this are a good way to clarify policy. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory. This one has turned into a pointless slanging match. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it policy/guideline/courtesy to notify all the builders of lists when their list is up for nomination for deletion? I believe so. So was this done in this case? Talk about dirty pool if not. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is courtesy to notify, and I did notify both the creator of the article and Racingstripes, since he did a lot of work on referencing. Clean pool here. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No not really, because that guest list of names was assembled for months recently on the 'Red Eye' main page by many different editors which you apparently did not contact at all.

Seriously? "Dirty pool", because I did notify the creators of this article, but not the umpteen editors of Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld dating back to August? Gurt Posh (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice slanging, but you only needed to contact those who actually built the guest list on the main Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld article. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Conerning References - The List of The Daily Show guests contains only one in-line citation on a guest name. That's it! Otherwise, has ZERO refences supporting that long list, unless you include the external links as references, which I believe the editors there are doing. Also, I sampled some of the 16 'The Daily Show (by year)' related articles, and the ones I sampled contain ZERO references! I assume none of the 16 do have any references. At least this List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld has some references (some bad, some good) and is not only depending on the external links for its references, but they probably are depending mosty on the external links, following the standing precedent set by List of The Daily Show guests. The list builders here are at least trying to have some references, but the editors over at The Daily Show Lists obviously feel confident they have the Wiki-wink-of-approval to not even try to find any references at all. Wiki-double-standard I am talking about. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They clearly all meet up in secret, to plan out their next unreferenced list article. And if it's not true, then why won't they step forward to deny these allegations? Gurt Posh (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about Glen Beck for (just you "slanging" apparently), but your hatred of him and, thereby conservatives, has finally revealed itself - your true motive for wanting to delete a Fox 'TV guest list', but you never get around to The Daily Show guest list for deletion. I am a independant libertarian, not a conservative. I started editing the main 'Red Eye' article because of Andy Levy and Greg Gutfeld, both libertarians I respect. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my comparison of your lame rhetoric to that of Glenn Beck (a man that any intelligent conservative will have nothing whatever to do with) reveals my true intentions! Busted! Gurt Posh (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Busted for what? Being a libertarian. Wow! If that is a bustable offense on Wiki, then Wiki has much bigger problems than I thought. You need a break because your many last comments don't make any sense whatsoever. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to really clarify policy as you said above, you can do so more effectively by going to the longest unreferenced 'TV guest list' you can find and nominate it for deletion. That list is your favorite, the List of The Daily Show guests, aka the Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists. Go there NOW and nominate it, then we'll all see what happens to your needed clarity.(wink) No secret meeting required at all for all this to happen exactly as I stated above. I'm calling your bluff. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you from going there NOW and nominating it? Gurt Posh (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should gather your composure and start making sense. I don't want it deleted! I never wanted it deleted! You said you wanted it deleted way back in June, so go nominate it NOW. I'm still waiting!--RedEyedCajun (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated accusations that I'm acting in WP:Bad faith because I nominated this guest list (and others), but won't nominate the Daily Show guest lists yet, are quite ridiculous. Gurt Posh (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 ::I don't know what you're talking about Glen Beck for (just you "slanging" apparently), but your hatred of him and, thereby conservatives, has finally revealed itself - your true motive for wanting to delete a Fox 'TV guest list', but you never get around to The Daily Show guest list for deletion. I am a independant libertarian, not a conservative. I started editing the main 'Red Eye' article because of Andy Levy and Greg Gutfeld, both libertarians I respect. --[[User:RedEyedCajun|RedEyedCajun]] ([[User talk:RedEyedCajun|talk]]) 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 :::Yes, my comparison of your lame rhetoric to that of Glenn Beck (a man that any intelligent conservative will have nothing whatever to do with) reveals my true intentions!  Busted! [[User:Gurt Posh|Gurt Posh]] ([[User talk:Gurt Posh|talk]]) 10:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
+::::Busted for what?  Being a libertarian. Wow! If that is a bustable offense on Wiki, then Wiki has much bigger problems than I thought.  You need a break because your many last comments don't make any sense whatsoever. --[[User:RedEyedCajun|RedEyedCajun]] ([[User talk:RedEyedCajun|talk]]) 11:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 : If you want to really clarify policy as you said above, you can do so more effectively by going to the longest unreferenced 'TV guest list' you can find and nominate it for deletion.  That list is your favorite, the [[List of The Daily Show guests]], aka the ''Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists.''  Go there NOW and nominate it, then we'll all see what happens to your needed clarity.(wink) No secret meeting required at all for all this to happen exactly as I stated above. I'm calling your bluff. --[[User:RedEyedCajun|RedEyedCajun]] ([[User talk:RedEyedCajun|talk]]) 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 ::What's stopping you from going there NOW and nominating it? [[User:Gurt Posh|Gurt Posh]] ([[User talk:Gurt Posh|talk]]) 10:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)