Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities who have made a guest appearance on Nickelodeon shows (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 was delete. Dakota 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

List of celebrities who have made a guest appearance on Nickelodeon shows
Utterly unmaintainable and indiscriminate list, no verifiability whatsoever (not a single source listed). Last AFD said keep with comments to give it a chance, but it's been three months and absolutely nothing has been done to improve the list. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Matthuxtable 13:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually, it's been one year and three months since the last AfD. In the interim, my feelings haven't changed.  The list is too long to merge with the network's article; as an appendix to that article, it is in keeping with practice for other cable networks. Xoloz 13:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What practice? I haven't seen a list of celebrities who have appeared on MTV. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. MER-C 13:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into the articles of the shows themselves (mostly All That). This information is useful, interesting, and encyclopedic, but should be organised by show, not by network.  For example, we certainly wouldn't want a List of celebrities who have made a guest appearance on NBC shows, with every guest from SNL, the Tonight Show, etc. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't wholly disagree with your point, Starblind, but there is a difference here: a single-purpose cable network gets many fewer guest stars than one of the "Big Four" networks. Xoloz 13:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true, and perhaps choosing NBC as my example was a poor choice on my part. My point is, though, that when people want to look up guest stars, they're much more likely to do so by program than by network.  This list includes guest stars in cartoons (Rugrats), Comedy/variety (All That), Game Shows (Double Dare), Music shows (Nick Rocks), Mysteries (Shelby Woo), Talk Shows (Livewire), and sitcoms (Pete & Pete).  It's a pretty diverse bunch, and doesn't (IMHO) make a whole lot of sense all grouped together. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xoloz. --ASDFGHJKL 13:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Hús  ö  nd  15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Too big, no utility. --InShaneee 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this hopelessly broad jumble. I'd want it merged if it were sourced, but there's no way to tell the facts from the BS here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. TheRingess 19:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into the individual shows articles per starblind. TJ Spyke 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete can be mentioned on individual show pages. ReverendG 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list sets a bad example for celebrities who have guest-starred on TV series. From this list would come "list of celebrities who have made a guest appearance on YTV shows", and from that one a "list of celebrities who have appeared on Oprah Winfrey". It doesn't assert notability at all. Never Mystic (tc) 21:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems my opinion furthered a few others who have already voted here. Never Mystic (tc) 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Classically useless and hopeless. Moriori 02:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unmaintainable, indiscriminate, unverified list. Resolute 03:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, let's just say per Resolute.  Dei zio  talk 09:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. musicpvm 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lists should have lasting historical and encyclopedic value. This one doesn't. -Amatulic 22:19, 19 October 2006 (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.