Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Late Late Show with James Corden 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 no consensus to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and some noted potential for expansion and improvement along the lines of better explaining the contents of each episode. As an additional aside, the list could be improved by cross-referencing Carpool Karaoke and indicating which episodes of the latter were broadcast on which episodes of the talk show. BD2412 T 19:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

List of The Late Late Show with James Corden episodes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A clear example of WP:NOT. Nominating along with the subpages: this has very little if any encyclopedic value. Seems like a running chronicle of a show which runs almost daily, but the only thing it provides is a listing of guests at the show along with, occasionally, some superficial details. WP:FANCRUFT which is probably WP:TMI and fails WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Added all those of the previous host too, since it does not change much... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how these are different from other episode lists, which are important to establish what the show is about. If there is not enough details, that can be fixed by editing, not deletion. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "What the show is about" can and should be discussed in the main article about the show? As to your WP:OSE I rebut that in the current form, these lists are clearly WP:INDISCRIMINATE material. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For sure, what the show is about is described at the main article, but having a list of episodes helps visualize what happens on a given episode. Having a list of episodes is a common feature of Wikipedia (and a good one at that) and I don't see why this particular TV series would be an exception. Listing every episode of a given television show would not be indiscriminate, which, I presume, would be a list of things made without care or distinction? -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed the link. Basically, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. A listing of every episode of a given television show still needs to abide by WP:V and WP:N - if the episodes are not independently notable from the main show (if there's, say, no specific coverage about them) then they likely don't belong here. A better place for this kind of thing is IMDB. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can't address this issue well, or properly, because I am ill, but I will throw up a few points, and hope someone else can translate it into "official Wikipedia" arguments, because I just can't right now.
 * I haven't edited in a long time, but when I did, I did for many years. My former user name is Peacedance, but the old password and email are gone, so I am posting this without being signed in, but you can look up my editing history if you are interested.
 * The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, and this is a very unique and remarkable show. It is *not* another regular late night show.
 * The history of this show includes many notable episodes, such as Ferguson's interview with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for which he won a Peabody; his 2007 monologue refusing to make fun of Britney Spears, which just went viral again last month; a series of uniquely personal shows, which included eulogies for his father and mother; the use of English pantomime traditions throughout the series, and I could go on. He also won the Banff World Media Festival's Peter Ustinov Lifetime Achievement award for the show.
 * Without an index of episodes, it is hard to even get started on documenting which ones are notable, and I think many are. It also seems clear that many people have put an awful lot of hard work into putting this list of episodes in. I use it to figure out which episodes exist, vs. dates when there were no shows, and thereby document narratives that carry over from show to show. IMDB is a mess compared to this succinct, tabled, linked, clear listing of dates, episodes, guests and bands.
 * I sincerely hope and urge that this not be deleted.
 * Former User Peacedance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.12.150 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that the show itself is notable. However a simple listing of all of the episodes in the current state is really just a directory-like listing of not-encyclopedic information which is additionally not sourced to any secondary source. How is "James Corden's Journey to The Late Late Show featuring cameos by Leslie Moonves, Simon Cowell, Joel McHale, George Lopez, Lena Dunham, Billy Crystal, Eddie Redmayne, Katie Couric, Chris Rock, Chelsea Handler, Jay Leno, Allison Janney, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Shia LaBeouf, and Meryl Streep, Every Tom Hanks Movie, James sings "Late Night Ballad"." (the first thing written for the first episode in the 2015 list) any kind of encyclopedic information: he had guests at his talk show? Yeah, sure, nobody would have guessed... I've looked through the supposedly "notable" episodes but much of it had nothing but WP:PRIMARY sources and what little seems like WP:NOTNEWS and it would likely be difficult to write full fledged articles about them. The few episodes that attracted awards or something more significant can be mentioned in the main articles. As for IMDB being a mess that is their problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I am neutral regarding James Cordon; I don't have an opinion there. I am arguing for Ferguson.
 * You suggested that IMDb would be the proper place "database" information. If so, then it is hardly fair to then argue that IMDB being a mess is irrelevant, where by mess I meant, incomplete, unlinked and difficult to navigate. Also, I don't see it as a database, I see it as an index.


 * Regarding primary sources, there are *tons* of cases all over Wikipedia, of television programs, where primary data is used and it is appropriate in this case. There is a guideline somewhere which says that if there is no reason to suspect the information is anything but straightforward, and it is the only source, you can use it.


 * Regarding Ferguson, just because there aren't articles for many? any? of his episodes doesn't mean they aren't notable, and that articles won't be built from them. And these lists are the base index structure from which it should be done. Articles could easily be written on the Britney Spears Monologue episode, and the Desmond Tutu interview, his innovative use of puppets in 2009, and I would argue many others.


 * Johnny Carson's list of episodes has descriptions of topics, the bands/songs/albums played, and cumulatively, they tell a story. Whether that "story" is in the optimal format isn't an argument for deletion. The same can be said/done for Ferguson, where episode descriptions could be added that document creative themes, entwining political events via key intellectual monologues and music.


 * Ferguson's show was very highly regarded for being extremely unique. Just to give you an (admittedly subjective) idea from IMDB:
 * The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson  8.4
 * The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson 8.3
 * The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien 8.0
 * The Late Show with David Letterman  6.9
 * The Late Late Show with James Cordon 6.1
 * The Tonight Show with Jay Leno     5.2


 * If you are going to argue for deleting Ferguson, then why not Carson? Why not skip this argument, and argue that *all* lists of talk show episodes be deleted?


 * Given so many important topics on WP need work, I don't believe that focusing on deleting something as innocuous as this, and something so many people have worked so hard on is worth the meg of data it might save.


 * One of the strengths of Wikipedia is arguments for exceptions to rules, and based on past decisions regarding episode lists, there is more than enough justification and desire by many Wikipedians for keeping these indexes to Ferguson's show, as evidenced by all the other talk and television shows with episode lists.
 * Former User Peacedance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.12.150 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Show popularity (like pageviews) and WP:OSE are not a valid reason. As for your IAR argument, I don't see how these lists "improve the encyclopedia" - they just list every single episode with very little detail overall. Given the sheer amount of them, it's unlikely that much have gained the "lasting and significant coverage" required by WP:GNG - any coverage is likely something along WP:NOTNEWS and routine levels, such as for ex. this (although it doesn't cover this show in particular). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Affects a large number of articles, needs more discussion.
 * Keep This is valid information that would not all fit in the main article, so these are valid spinoff articles, done by season since that's the only reasonable way to do it.  D r e a m Focus  13:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, wikipedia IS NOT a fansite, TV guide or indiscriminate collection of information. The guideline says articles should not exist purely for "summary-only descriptions of worksSummary-only descriptions of works", which is pretty much what these articles are. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 17:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, c, l) 09:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an appropriate and useful list, notable as a whole, with clear scope and inclusion criteria. Contrary to repeated assertions above, the entries of a list do not need to be individually notable (Stand-alone lists). Indeed, lists commonly exist "explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". When episode lists are too long to fit in the main article, breaking it off to a separate page is standard. The further splitting by year may or may not be ideal (vs. dividing by season, or merging it all into one episode list for James Corden); I would not oppose reorganization. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that this doesn't have a clear scope or inclusion criteria. The problem is this doesn't present any encyclopedic information- i.e. WP:NOT. An encyclopedia is "a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge" - a summary listing of all episodes in a TV series without any commentary whatsoever looks better fit for a database... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would be curious for someone to articulate criteria for which type of show merits stand-alone lists of all of its episodes. A big difference between this and most other sorts of similar lists is that these episodes are not part of a larger whole. There is no narrative, no [reality] competition, no driving force which moves from the first episode of a season to the last. It's a variety format. As such there's limited information we can provide to a reader by presenting them together. There are some shows which, when they air, get enough coverage for each episode that even though a list of episodes doesn't add all that much understanding of the show in general, there is nonetheless a good case for notability for a stand-alone list. Last Week Tonight and Saturday Night Live seem like a couple good examples here. I don't see the daily variety/news/talk programs as fitting into either the "enough coverage of each episode to be independently notable from the show" column or the "helps readers understand the show, but would be too cumbersome to include in the main article" column. As such, I'm leaning weak delete at this point. "Weak" because while it's hard to back these up with strong policy arguments, readers are visiting these pages. I may be able to be convinced along those lines, but I'm having a hard time. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really in a position to articulate general criteria for keeping talk show episodes. That's a bigger discussion than the one we're having here, a la Carson. I can suggest criteria that, in aggregate, make Ferguson's worth keeping:
 * 1. The show made a unique creative contribution, representing a significant departure from and an innovation in the usual format, and pushed the boundaries of network television censorship; and
 * 2. The show has many episodes that were individually significant, and had significant cultural impact, and arguably there are others which have not been identified; and, perhaps most importantly,
 * 3. Because Ferguson used the show as an "open book on my life", the show as a whole, year to year, tells an evolving creative, personal, and cultural story, and many individual episodes are essential elements of that story, which can be fleshed out in the episode descriptions. Former User Peacedance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.12.150 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of these points would require independent secondary sources to confirm them; and then enough coverage about the episodes themselves to justify having a list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:SPINOFF and WP:SIGCOV. It's a notable show with many verifiable sources readily available in print for appropriate expansion. The content itself isn't full of fancruft. The list could be expanded to make it less of a directory design (i.e. providing a basic summary of each episode). Deleting the article isn't the answer for developing lists on notable topics with clear delimitation. I'm not seeing a good policy based argument for deletion here.4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and SIGCOV. A handful of individual talk show episodes may be notable, but that is by far the exception, rather than the rule. Daily episodes are far too numerous for such treatment. Show me where episodes are described in some detail anywhere outside of Wikipedia. There aren't any AFAIK, so there is no SIGCOV. There are a lot more such lists; even those during Johnny Carson's "reign" should go. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose/keep. LLSwCF is a culturally significant show that broke many conventions of the genre and is generally unlike most other network shows purported to be in the same class. Also, this proposed deletion is ambiguous and the deletion information link in the article for "Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" links to a page titled "Late Late Show with James Corden." These are two different programs and should be treated separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.131.13.69 (talk)  — 143.131.13.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is not about deleting the shows. This is about deleting the lists of episodes. Two different things. The lists of programs are not different enough in significance to justify only deleting some of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Episode lists are common on Wikipedia for popular shows. There are also book volume descriptions for comics and manga, and some of these are featured. Saying that episode lists are WP:FANCRUFT is simply not true. Swordman97  talk to me  01:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fiction is a whole different animal from talk shows. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This also doesn't explain why we should keep this one. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an ad populum - the other ones might need trimming too (or they might not, who knows). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete. I edit a lot in the TV area and I'm also a fan of episode lists, but these lists offer almost no value. The reason why episodic TV series have episode lists, as was mentioned above by another editor, is that there is a story or narrative that is important to the reader. Here we have summaries like "Crosswalk! The Musical, Musical Chers", which is almost meaningless. --Gonnym (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Horrible listcruft. This is not comparable to lists of episodes of shows like Star Trek, because those have a common narrative. Here, all we have is a few names per episode, which has no or extremely little encyclopedic value. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2021 (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.