Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show correspondent titles (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Mo0 [ talk ] 06:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote tally was:
 * 21 delete -- 55.26%
 * 10 keep (8 keep + 2 keep/merge) -- 26.3%
 * 5 merge (3 merge + 2 keep/merge) -- 13.1%
 * 2 keep/merge -- 5.26%

List of The Daily Show correspondent titles
This article was deleted in this AfD. A debate at WP:DRV was concerned that there might have been more particpation if this were re-listed (though note there is no quorum for AfDs). So here we are: the orignial nomination read: "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful.".-Splash talk 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Link to closed DRV discussion --- Charles Stewart 19:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful." jucifer 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge the most notable titles to Daily Show; some, not all, of these segments are memorable within the show, as per WP coverage of SNL. Xoloz 04:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; it's fancruft, but that doesn't make it unusual - Guettarda 04:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep could be useful for someone. -- JJay 05:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I pity that someone. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll let them know. -- JJay 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. This list is referred to by several articles, so keeping it would be the easiest solution. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To be precise, it is listed by two: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. --- Charles Stewart 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ludicrous fan-cruft. I love the show, but this is a running gag that could be generated by a computer (Subject: "Media" Output: "Senior Media Correspondent"). Utterly pointless list. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. About as useful to fans and others as lists of who has been reading the news on television each and every day. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge into Daily Show if you have to. Proto t c 14:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT an indiscrimante collection of information, for the reason articulated very clearly by Sjakkalle. If there were something interesting about some of the entries in the list, then that can be mention in a "Trivia" section of the main article on the show. We don't need an information-free collection of newsreaders' names. (Note that although I nominated, that was procedural.) -Splash talk 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete A good short list of examples appears in the Daily Show article, but if the list page could be improved: remove the redundant titles, that is, list each title only once, I might be convinced to change to a weak keep. D-Rock 14:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Daily Show space, i.e. Daily Show/List of correspondent titles. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no "Daily Show space". Sub-pages are a bad thing. They are sometimes used for structural reasons on project pages but we have intentionally disabled their use in the article space. See Subpages for more. Rossami (talk)
 * Delete. A few mentions of memorable titles are appropriate in the main article.  Attempting to create a comprehensive list of every such title is beyond the scope of even a paperless encyclopedia.  This list is so large (and will continue to get larger as long as the show continues) and the contents so trivial that the list can not be effectively protected from subtle vandalism such as the introduction of plausible but inaccurate information.  Yes, in theory it could be protected.  But in practice, we have a continual shortage of informed and responsible editors.  "Merge and redirect" is, in my mind, unnecessary since the contents of this article came from the main article.  History of the original attribution is already preserved there.  Rossami (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns, but if "likely target of subtle vandalism" was a deletion criterion, we'd have an awful lot of deleting to do. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The standard is not "likely target" of vandalism but whether the article will draw enough informed editors to protect it from the inevitable vandalism.  George W. Bush is among the most vandalized pages on Wikipedia but we have lots of reputable editors with deep and specific content knowledge who verify recent contributions and are able to quickly find and revert the vandalism.  Rossami (talk)
 * Delete - I listed it the first time, and my opinion hasn't changed. One quick question, did I screw up some policy somewhere that prevented the original VFD from getting listed in all the appropriate places?  AFAIK, everything was done properly.  Not sure why this is being relisted, other than someone being unhappy with the outcome.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The concensus of the Deletion Review discussion was that there was a good faith request for relisting to gather more participation in the debate.  As far as I can see, you followed policy correctly but we allow exceptions from policy when the community thinks that might be in the best interests of the encyclopedia.  Rossami (talk)
 * Comment - There was no hint of criticism for the way you handled the AfD, only concern that no-one who edited the article's content participated in the AfD. We have one article editor so far in this AfD, so it's improved in that respect... --- Charles Stewart 19:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Phil Sandifer 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful." As he says. Pilatus 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let's not have the "it wouldn't be found in Brittanica article.  Given how Wikipedia has been under fire lately, don't you all think that gems of articles like this are really where Wiki shines?Moveapage 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * new user created since the discussion began. contributions
 * Delete or merge some examples into The Daily Show. Edgar181 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and return to sender. listcruft.Gateman1997 23:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. One of the more notable parts of The Daily Show is their parody of news correspondents, and this is basically that in a nutshell. karmafist 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless list that's basically just listing jokes that aren't funny in this context. Just about every day they come up with a new title for someone, based on what's currently in the news: "Senior Crips on Death Row Correspondent", "Senior Iraq Death-toll Correspondent", "Senior Wikipedia is Unreliable Correspondent", etc. No real value. Why not just make List of stuff on TV some of us thought was funny and put all lousy eggs in one basket? -R. fiend 06:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless, unencyclopedic list. Eusebeus 15:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow this article really is crap. What is comes down to is a list of bad repetitive jokes made on a TV program.  This has no place in wiki.  It is total BS. jucifer 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That means Keep, right? -- JJay 01:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - I don't like deleting obviously well-constructed articles, but the encyclopediac merits of the article that have been argued for are sufficiently slight that they do not outweigh the concerns raised by Rossami. --- Charles Stewart 15:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ridiculous fancruft. --DDG 20:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Juicifer. David | Talk 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Considering how thorough the first is right now, I have no worries about it becoming corrupted by vandals or falling out of use.  Plus, these sorts of data-intensive articles are precisely Wiki's advantage over paper encyclopedias. --Mareino 23:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Listcruft. Wikipedia is not an undiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.--nixie 12:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Smerge into Daily Show. BD2412  T 20:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this *is* encyclopedic. It's a completely verifiable collection of related information about a very important part of culture (a television show in this case). Turnstep 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Splash --Jaranda wat's sup 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I do find it notable and easily verifiable. 69.136.243.80 02:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The above keep is myself... I somehow got logged out. &mdash; Falerin&lt;talk&gt;,&lt;contrib&gt; 02:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.