Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

List of The Daily Show guests
Unencyclopedic The Daily Show cruft. WP:NOT. Delete. -- Norvy (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a concise way to find out who has been on the show. This list, for some reason, is very difficult to find elsewhere on the Internet.
 * Keep. What part of "what wikipedia is not" does this list fall under? Also, doesn't this clearly fall under the scope of having lists?  If nothing else, I don't see that this article is hurting anything or is detrimental to the overall quality of Wikipedia.  It is also significant to note that this is the most complete list of its kind available on the internet, which makes it unique and to an extent irreplaceable. Ario 21:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much better than a category for Daily Show guests, and it is interesting information (per Ario). We have lists of SNL skits and lists of tall people, for Pete's sake! :) In fact, I'm pretty sure there are lists of SNL guest hosts and maybe even Johnny Carson's guests, so this fits right in. A useful cross-section of celebrity. --Quuxplusone 21:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems nicely maintained, doesn't hurt anyone. Punkmorten 21:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doesn't fit criteria for WP:NOT. 23skidoo 00:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's see: 4 times a week, times -- say -- 44 weeks a year equals an unwieldy, trivial, and pointless list that belongs ona fan page: Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:43, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a bunch of other episode guides too. There should be a mass judgment for all of those if one is going to be deleted. Plus this is very well-maintained. Hao2lian 03:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well maintained, what's so bad about it? Of all the lists on the site, you pick this one?  If you're not going to have lists, then get rid of them all, not just one or two.  Leave this alone for pete's sake. JChamberlin 11:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * (Question): At what point does this discussion end? It appears that the aye's have it... Ario 19:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How much longer until the discussion is closed? There hasn't been any activity for several days and the consensus seems to be overwhelming.  The deletion notice on the main article is unsightly. Ario 23:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's extremely well maintained, and works well for its purpose. --Mcmillin24 01:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep People like it and there's no reason to remove it. I use it all the time!
 * Keep What "Wikipedia is Not" does this fall under again? Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I helped to put this together, and I don't want it to be destroyed with the press of one button. And everyone else has said it...how does it not belong on Wikipedia? --J L C Leung 05:06, 7 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.