339:- 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)
200:. 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
364:
with no sources, I think
Knowledge (XXG), 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,
268:
Such articles are very common in
Knowledge (XXG), because they perform the service of being an easy source of information that some people apparently find useful. Those who seek to rid Knowledge (XXG) of such innocuous technical violations of a rule that they hold dear will find themselves very busy
359:
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
370:
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
78:
265:: "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.
73:
445:
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.
494:'s "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it." trumps the wish to turn the encyclopedia into a blog with millions of non notable articles. --
105:
100:
365:
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.
109:
490:. 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.
92:
371:
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
224:, in addition to many others. To me, that indicates notability. Knowledge (XXG) performs a useful service by collecting the guests together in an easily accessible list. There would not be room in the
138:
360:
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:
635:
96:
174:
88:
63:
375:, 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.
355:
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:
661:
468:
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
514:. 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.
696:
676:
650:
622:
593:
571:
546:
523:
481:
410:
394:
343:
327:
282:
237:
192:
57:
372:
289:
A blog may be a better place for this than an encyclopedia if there is no significant coverage in reliable, published, third party sources. --
486:
That was in reply to Sock's "it does not harm anyone", but non notable article not sourced to reliable, published, third party sources
209:
566:
389:
487:
17:
423:
356:
225:
450:: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it."
472:
guests, sourced from the show itself, requires quite a confluence of imagination and ignorance of what constitutes libel.--
499:
462:
294:
170:
709:
36:
259:
A third party source means it's independent from the people producing it, NPR is not a third party to an NPR show.
708:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
519:
495:
458:
290:
166:
672:
646:
563:
407:
386:
205:
692:
617:
584:- This is a bit like lists of episodes articles. I think it's a reasonable fork from the original page.
541:
201:
438:. If anyone thinks there aren't any RP3 sources for these, they're free to nominate them for deletion.
589:
361:
188:
253:
688:
309:
53:
340:
477:
352:
323:
278:
233:
213:
687:
the guests pretty much define each episode, this is essentially equivalent to an episode list.--
668:
642:
559:
404:
382:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
535:
of their appearance on the show, so the subject does not inherit notability from the guests.
249:
609:
537:
454:
262:
162:
150:
585:
351:- I disagree. I think that the argument can be made that if there is a page like this for
184:
435:
246:
154:
312:
79:
Articles for deletion/List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005) (2nd nomination)
554:
49:
491:
447:
242:
146:
473:
319:
274:
229:
315:
126:
515:
212:? Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! has had an impressive variety of guests, including
228:
article to include a list of all guests over the 12-year history of the show.--
217:
603:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
270:
221:
453:
These non notable articles can harm people when they're vandalized with
74:
Articles for deletion/List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005)
557:
guests, but those pages exist and are accepted by the community. -
311:. If these articles are deleted, we will thereby open up the same
165:- notable, sourced guest info can go into the show's article. --
702:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
420:
Unref tag put on List of The
Colbert Report episodes (2005)
442:
431:
427:
419:
401:
133:
122:
118:
114:
636:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
608:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
245:: "If a topic has received significant coverage in
432:Unref tag on List of The Daily Show guests (2005)
89:List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005)
64:List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
712:). No further edits should be made to this page.
269:indeed, having volunteered to play the role of
304:is that they were requested by editors to the
443:proposed the deletion of List of MXC episodes
8:
531:. The subjects of the list are not notable
318:that these articles were created to close.--
424:List of The Daily Show episodes#cite_note-0
662:list of Radio-related deletion discussions
656:
630:
373:List of The Colbert Report episodes (2005)
660:: This debate has been included in the
634:: This debate has been included in the
436:reliable, published, third party sources
71:
183:. Notability not asserted. Listcruft.
62:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
210:List of Two and a Half Men episodes
70:
161:. Re: prod removal/talk, see also
24:
300:Please note that these articles'
434:. All of these very likely has
357:List_of_The_Daily_Show_episodes
553:The same goes for any list of
1:
428:put a Morefootnotes tag on it
470:Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!
306:Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!
729:
426:is an USA Today ref and I
226:Wait Wait… Don't Tell Me!
58:20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
705:Please do not modify it.
697:03:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
677:01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
651:01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
623:23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
594:06:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
572:04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
547:23:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
524:15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
488:harm people all the time
482:23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
457:but no one spots it. --
411:02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
395:01:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
344:23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
328:23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
283:23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
238:23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
193:05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
175:05:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
206:Bewitched DVD Releases
69:AfDs for this article:
202:List of Monk Episodes
155:reliable, published,
362:List of MXC episodes
353:The Colbert Report
214:Patrick Fitzgerald
145:Does not indicate
44:The result was
679:
665:
653:
639:
625:
569:
392:
250:secondary sources
720:
707:
666:
640:
620:
614:
607:
605:
570:
562:
560:The Talking Sock
405:The Talking Sock
393:
385:
383:The Talking Sock
256:of the subject".
136:
130:
112:
34:
728:
727:
723:
722:
721:
719:
718:
717:
716:
710:deletion review
703:
618:
610:
601:
558:
381:
132:
103:
87:
84:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
726:
724:
715:
714:
699:
681:
680:
654:
627:
626:
606:
598:
597:
596:
575:
574:
555:The Daily Show
550:
549:
526:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
451:
439:
414:
413:
398:
397:
377:
376:
367:
366:
346:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
287:
286:
285:
260:
257:
195:
143:
142:
83:
82:
81:
76:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
725:
713:
711:
706:
700:
698:
694:
690:
686:
683:
682:
678:
674:
670:
663:
659:
655:
652:
648:
644:
637:
633:
629:
628:
624:
621:
615:
613:
604:
600:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
581:
577:
576:
573:
568:
565:
561:
556:
552:
551:
548:
545:
543:
539:
534:
530:
527:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:
464:
460:
456:
452:
449:
444:
440:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
409:
406:
402:
400:
399:
396:
391:
388:
384:
379:
378:
374:
369:
368:
363:
358:
354:
350:
347:
345:
342:
338:
335:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
313:Pandora's box
310:
308:article. See
307:
303:
302:raison d'etre
299:
298:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
267:
266:
264:
261:
258:
255:
251:
248:
244:
241:
240:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
178:
177:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
158:
152:
148:
140:
135:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
80:
77:
75:
72:
65:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
704:
701:
684:
669:TexasAndroid
657:
643:TexasAndroid
631:
611:
602:
579:
578:
536:
532:
528:
511:
498:, 2009-06-01
469:
461:, 2009-05-29
348:
336:
305:
301:
293:, 2009-05-27
197:
180:
169:, 2009-05-25
156:
144:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
538:Malinaccier
254:independent
157:third party
586:Shadowjams
243:notability
218:Dave Barry
185:Kiwikibble
181:Delete all
147:notability
430:, and an
337:Weak keep
252:that are
50:Fritzpoll
689:RadioFan
567:contribs
474:HughGRex
390:contribs
320:HughGRex
316:of worms
297:12:26zv
275:HughGRex
271:Sisyphus
247:reliable
230:HughGRex
222:Jim Webb
139:View log
533:because
496:Jeandré
465:07:22z
459:Jeandré
341:Bart133
291:Jeandré
173:05:03z
167:Jeandré
159:sources
106:protect
101:history
529:Delete
516:Stifle
512:Delete
502:05:35z
263:wp:OSE
220:, and
163:wp:OSE
151:trivia
134:delete
110:delete
455:libel
441:I've
208:, or
153:, no
137:) – (
127:views
119:watch
115:links
16:<
693:talk
685:Keep
673:talk
658:Note
647:talk
632:Note
590:talk
582:keep
580:Weak
564:talk
542:talk
520:talk
492:wp:v
478:talk
448:wp:v
408:talk
387:talk
349:Keep
324:talk
279:talk
234:talk
198:Keep
189:talk
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
54:talk
667:--
641:--
616:|
612:Tan
403:--
273:.--
695:)
675:)
664:.
649:)
638:.
619:39
592:)
522:)
480:)
422:,
326:)
281:)
236:)
216:,
204:,
191:)
149:,
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
56:)
48:.
691:(
671:(
645:(
588:(
544:)
540:(
518:(
500:t
476:(
463:t
380:-
322:(
295:t
277:(
232:(
187:(
171:t
141:)
131:(
129:)
91:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.