Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Comedy Bang! Bang! episodes


 * 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 delete. After I discount the "keep" opinions that were apparently canvassed on Reddit, the "delete" opinions are more numerous and more persuasive. The "keep" arguments are, first, that WP:NLIST is met, but this is only asserted and not argued on the basis of sources. Second, it is argued that this is a "list of episodes of a notable show", but this does not conform to the RfC consensus pointed out by the nominator that episode lists do need to meet NLIST on their own merits.  Sandstein  09:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

List of Comedy Bang! Bang! episodes

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The list does not pass WP:NLIST because the episodes are not "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There was a recent RfC discussion which concluded that podcast episode lists must pass NLIST to merit a stand-alone article (disclosure: I opened the RfC). I recently WP:BLARed this list so redirecting to Comedy Bang! Bang! could be considered as an alternative to deletion.

With the exception of an WP:INTERVIEW with the host of the show at The A.V. Club, I don't see any reliable sources that discuss the episodes as a group or set, and none of the individual episodes appear to be independently notable. Considering the number of links I would think that WP:LINKFARM applies, and I think there is also an argument to be made that the list violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Entertainment. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete list of episodes, so WP:NDIR applies. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as a list of episodes of a notable show. The topic of the list is Comedy Bang! Bang!, which is clearly notable. Obviously, these entries are implicitly primary sourced, which means anyone can challenge inclusion of anything they believe to be wrong. Merge into the show would be possible as an ATD but quite long and unwieldy per WP:LENGTH. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Weak keep . This is a difficult one. First I checked if reliable sources dealt with them as a list WP:NLIST. I did't find anything significant. So that seems to suggest delete. But WP:ATD would guide us towards merge. But this is a very long list, at 216,950 bytes. Comedy Bang! Bang! is 14,756 bytes. WP:LENGTH subsection WP:SIZERULE is clear that anything over 100kb "Almost certainly" should be split. An article about something that is 93% list and 7% not list would seem silly. The rules don't help us here, they put me in a circle. But actually, we don't have rules, we are humans and we can make sensible decisions, especially where the rules prevents you from improving or maintaining wikipedia and WP:IAR gives us specific advice on what to do, which is to ignore the rule. With that long introduction, I think keeping this is the least bad of all the outcomes, even if it isn't an elegant solution, I see no harm in keeping the article, and I see the loss of encyclopedic information arising from deleting it. The lost of a list of episodes would not keep me awake at night, but it is still a net positive for the encyclopedia. CT55555 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just realised I didn't give enough thought to the RfC. I think that puts me somewhere between mild delete and neutral. I may update this. If I don't, count me as neutral. CT55555 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per the RfC discussion, podcast episode lists, unlike episode lists for TV shows, have to pass WP:NLIST to be notable. There's no reason why the list of episodes has to be on Wikipedia at all in that case, we can simply delete it. There are other avenues for people who want a full list of podcast episodes. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I am generally against such lists but this list is far from the general criteria we expect from episode lists. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are two keep !votes on the talk page CT55555 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep While I do acknowledge that the article does not conform to what is considered the standard rule set, I want to comment on the content of the article itself, as I feel it merits consideration as an exception. Said content is accurate and incomparably comprehensive, verified by simply cross-referencing episode number, title, and associated guest/character appearances on any podcast application, as well as the paid service offered by the podcast host which provides access to the entire catalogue of episodes. I do not believe one should have to pay a subscription fee in order to find information on archived episodes, information that at this point (as far as my efforts thus far have confirmed) can only be found in this article or an otherwise painstaking process of looking through each free episode available on various podcast applications. Other sites, including the Fandom page for the podcast that attempts to list episode numbers/names/guests/characters, has in my experience (as recently as yesterday 2/22/2023) been impartial or inaccurate. The result has been my return to this Wikipedia article that has allowed me to identify quickly and accurately with simple keyword searches the episode I am looking for. I strongly believe that anyone else who like me has a vested interest in the podcast and this article/list can confirm this. I also believe it would be a safe assumption to say that there are many other avid listeners of this podcast who rely on this page for the content it provides that cannot be found anywhere else. While the list does not pass WP:NLIST because the episodes are not "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", it should be stressed that the podcast episode archive itself, the only primary source that can technically exist, attests to the reliability of this article. Deleting it would be to the detriment of many, including myself, who reference it on a regular basis without issue. Yodas4sale (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC) — Yodas4sale (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think we should keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.203.218.37 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)  — 185.203.218.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep: Someone brought notice of this article's potential deletion to me and I'd just like to say that as a long-time listener of the podcast in question, I would very much like this article to be kept, and would be willing to make edits to help do so.
 * The podcast in question has been in existence for nearly 14 years, and has its roots in a radio show/improv show from the early 2000s, which was a locus of talent in the alt-comedy scene. As you can see from the list of its guests and their appearances, it features some prominent comedians and cultural figures, often in the early parts of their careers and so this list may be of journalistic/historical importance. Occasional musical guests perform stripped-down versions of their songs in the recording studio, which fans of the artists may wish to find.
 * Although the content isn't necessarily high-brow, I feel confident in saying that fans of the show have a lot of affection for it, and in particular to episodes involving pairings of guests/characters and features (though the specific set of episodes will differ from listener to listener). Though the podcast is episodic and unscripted, there are recurring features, characters and story-lines that listeners often like to revisit or that new listeners seek out to better enjoy the performances. This list is a very helpful resource in that regard.
 * As the host often comments, the podcast began before the mid-2010s boom in the medium, and averages about 50 episodes a year, each about 80-100 minutes in length. It branched out into a TV show of more than 100 episodes, and now sits as part of a small network of "in-universe" podcasts involving characters from the main one. There is significant value and utility in maintaining a list of these episodes, and as there is a fairly comprehensive one contained in this page, it would be quite a loss to have it deleted. August Lindt (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC) — August Lindt (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How were you made aware of the deletion discussion? CT55555 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They likely were made aware by a post on the Comedy Bang Bang Subreddit. Yodas4sale (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The post that you made? Are you aware of the WP:CANVASS behavioural guideline? CT55555 (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware that my Reddit post is in violation of the written rule. However, I believe that the unique nature of this case, as outlined in previous posts, warrants unique action to support it. With all due respect I will illustrate, briefly to the best of my ability so as to not come across as standing on a soapbox, to try and make clear the sincere spirit of my position. Please bear with me.
 * In matters of Ownership, such as the holding of title to property by a private party, there are instances where the owner cannot enjoy their ownership free and clear due to complications arising from additional parties who may knowingly or unknowingly have a vested interest in said title in the form of some type of land rights. There may not be any knowledge of the existence whatsoever by the owner of who these other parties are. In order to perfect ownership, the owner is permitted by law to "delete" the interest the unknown parties may have by filing a suit of Quiet Title Action, wherein a judge will instruct the owner to serve those unknown parties claiming an interest in the property through publication. This case law can be found here: (Donel, Inc. v. Badalian (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 327, 332.)
 * The takeaway from this is that intent to delete the interest of unknown parties must be made known "through publication". The intent must be made public, in writing, so that anyone who may have interest in the title can contest the deletion of said interest. Furthermore, California Civil Code CCP § 763.010 states that "reasonable diligence" must be used to inform unknown parties. It has been precedented by Watts v. Crawford (1995) 10 Cal.4th 743, 749, fn. 5 that “Reasonable diligence” denotes “a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney.”
 * Now it is clearly, clearly obvious that the letter of these laws has no jurisdiction here in any measure. But how does the spirit of this legislation apply to the matter at hand? It could be argued that "reasonable diligence" was used to inform unknown parties who have a vested interest in this page's content of its deletion, in the form of a notice on the top of said page. I would argue that such an effort actually does not denote a "thorough, systematic investigation" to inform interested parties, and that "reasonable diligence" in this case would include informing a modestly sized but well-established internet community of loyal fans of what is about to take place. Yes, this can be defined as Canvassing. But I believe that if there are principles of ownership well founded in matters of private ownership, how much more so should these principles, the spirit of the rules, be applied in this specific case to free information that has no private owner but belongs to us all as the public? Should this not merit by necessity an additional measure of reasonable effort, as I have taken with my Reddit post, however it may be classified, to inform those with vested interest in the public content in question and who will be needlessly disadvantaged should that content be deleted due to it not being in strict conformance to the guidelines? Should not such unknown parties be permitted to contest the decision even if it constitutes an overwhelming majority opinion and could be said to compromise the normal consensus decision making process? After all, the only ones who benefit from this page are the listeners of the podcast, represented in this case by the subreddit in which I posted.
 * I must stress that I believe these principles apply because of the existence of the Comedy Bang Bang subreddit, a place where reasonable diligence" can be exercised. Without it, there would be no reasonable manner in which to inform the public. This is why I do not believe my post there can be considered canvassing.
 * August Lindt made clear that the podcast has established a legacy. It has even won awards because of its popularity. There is indeed significant value and utility in maintaining a list of these episodes, especially as new fans of the podcast continue to be made. This is by far the best place to access this information. As you stated in a previous post, the rules do not help us here. We are humans and we can make reasonable decisions. The reasonable decision here is to refrain from deleting the page. Yodas4sale (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you over-complicated that explanation, the way I see it is that this seems like canvassing. The reddit thread also indicates that there is a group of people who consider this page useful. It's interesting how posting notice of the AFD to a WikiProject would be considered a good thing to do, but to a subreddit would be a bad thing to do, and yet the intention is quite similar.
 * Seeing that a small and obscure community find this list helpful is something that I do find relevant. Is this page overall a net positive or a net negative to the encyclopedia? My views have shifted again towards net positive. I'll vote again below. CT55555 (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was the post on the subreddit. I apologize if my behavior is against the formal rules here, but I wouldn't have known otherwise, as I haven't checked this page in a few weeks. August Lindt (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep 2603:8081:1401:9410:DC99:D478:D924:A23B (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC) — 2603:8081:1401:9410:DC99:D478:D924:A23B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep i think keep it ok 120.29.68.253 (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Lean keep . I voted keep. Then I was persuaded to revoke that, after someone pointed out the RfC, which I had not sufficiently factored into my analysis. So I updated to neutral. Then I saw the canvassing and WP:SPA votes, which I looked into and flagged. Then I saw how an obscure reddit community find this list to be a useful encyclopedic resource.
 * I'm struck about how posting notice of an AFD to a WikiProject is considered a good thing and doing the same to the relevant subreddit is a bad thing. I uncomfortable because this seems like I'm endorsing canvassing, but the chain of events and off wiki activity that I've noted has actually persuaded me that this list has encyclopedic value. I can only justify this argument by pointing to WP:IAR. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion is the very embodiment of why posting notice of an AFD to a WikiProject is considered a good thing and doing the same to the relevant subreddit is a bad thing; notices to WikiProject attract Wikipedians who are interested in the fate of articles on the topic, whereas notices to reddit attract content-free WP:ITSUSEFULs like the above that the poster incorrectly thinks will influence the fate of this discussion. Finally, you said above that the intention is quite similar - language like This [deletion proposal] is absolutely ridiculous from the linked Reddit post wouldn't be tolerated even at a WikiProject, and makes it clear that the intention is fundamentally different. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've struck my leaning keep !vote, I'm back to neutral, after reading the rebuttal of my point above. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I erred in not specifying in the subreddit post that contributions to this RfC should only be made if meaningful arguments are presented. I updated my post to inform readers of this shortly after seeing that this is what was happening. My intention was certainly not to flood this RfC with spammed Keep comments. It was my assumption that any who took the time to look into the intent to delete the article would then follow up with their own thoughts on the matter should they feel inclined. As you can probably tell, I deeply value the information in the article, and my only intention is to hopefully demonstrate that there are others who feel the same way and that deleting it would be a disservice. I hope that this clarification can be taken in good faith by all. I do not mean to cause chaos and apologize since that is what has taken place. Yodas4sale (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a giant mass of fancruft with only one source. None of the above keep arguments make any attempt to dispute the original reason for deletion: that notability providing sources, per the linked RfC, must be found, and none have been. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is fancruft the best way to describe what is occurring here? I ask because I genuinely don't think that this Wiki article is exactly general interest. The information is beneficial for a niche group of individuals. Perhaps I'm mistaken in my understanding of the definition of the word though. In any case, on the matter of notability, I believe it has been commented already that the only primary source that can exist for this list is the podcast itself. Additionally, it has also been pointed out that it may not be a practical resolution to merge the article with the main page due to the amount of information contained within it. I'm seeing under the Notability guidelines that an alternative to merging or deletion is to "Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources." Could a note be written at the beginning of the article saying something to the effect of "Reference the podcast as a primary source" to satisfy that criteria? After all, the main reason anyone would reference the list is to then redirect to the podcast once they've found what they're looking for. I can attest that the information has been consistently accurate thus far. Just a thought. Yodas4sale (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * [...] this Wiki article is [not] exactly general interest. The information is beneficial for a niche group of individuals is the very definition of fancruft. Re it has been commented already that the only primary source that can exist for this list is the podcast itself, I'm assuming you meant to omit the word "primary", in which case it self-evidently follows from your claim that the list is not notable. Re, Additionally, it has also been pointed out that it may not be a practical resolution to merge the article with the main page due to the amount of information contained within it, I suggested a delete not a merge. Re Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources, you misunderstand what that clause is about; it's a procedural rule, suggesting that people who doubt the notability of an article should sometimes ask the creator where to find the necessary third-party sources rather than trying to look themselves and nominating for deletion if they fail, and is inapplicable at this stage of the discussion. Re, I can attest that the information has been consistently accurate thus far. Just a thought. - see WP:ITSUSEFUL. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I from the outset acknowledged that the article does not conform to the letter of the law, so to speak. That includes notability. I was not referring to you when pointing out that a merge had been suggested. Another commenter made that suggestion. A clause from WP:ITSUSEFUL "Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'" Allow me to clarify what I mean when I say that I can attest that the information in the article has been consistently accurate thus far: The list on this page brings together the entire catalogue of episode numbers, names, guest celebrities, characters, features, and musical acts and is useful for navigating the subject of the podcast and its contents, and it does so in an accurate manner. No other resource available comes close to the level of thoroughness this article/list contains. Yodas4sale (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Two comments: First, nothing motivates skeptical long-time Wikipedia editors to jump in to one of these debates like seeing a bunch of new users sign up just to vote. In other words, you're doing more harm than good to your own cause. Second, I didn't see the RfC linked at the top, but I fail to see anything conclusive coming out of it. We already have two ways lists of episodes, characters, etc. come about: notability via NLIST and article splits. That RfC doesn't somehow supersede long-standing style guidelines about what to do when part of an article gets too long. So the question is: does this meet NLIST, or would it be WP:DUE in the main article, but too long to include there? I don't know the answer to either. A search for sources returns a few (the podcast is among the most notable comedy podcasts, for whatever that's worth), but I do think this is going to hinge more on whether it should be included in the main article. A good hypothetical is: if there were 20 episodes instead of hundreds, would it make sense to include in the main article? If so, it's probably not crazy to spin it out to its own page. If not, well, there's always fandom.com. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I find your logic persuasive. Indeed if there were 20, it would seem logical to add them. The real number would make the page look strange. Which makes me change my mind again, I now !vote keep. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.