Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RedEyedCajun (talk | contribs) at 07:43, 25 August 2011 (Reply to attempt to shhh! me when I'm trying to help Wiki in general by exposing real issues which are not being addressed or publicly acknowledged). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld

List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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: 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:
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.
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]
The main Daily Show guest-list article has been nominated three times:
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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_guests_on_Red_Eye_w/_Greg_Gutfeld&oldid=446618056"