Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ellen DeGeneres Show

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. jni 16:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Ellen DeGeneres Show
Was tagged as speedy, but is not a CSD candidate. Maybe non-notable? No vote yet. jni 09:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Notable topic. Keep and cleanup/expand. To quote the main article: "DeGeneres' show was nominated for eleven Daytime Emmy Awards its freshman season, winning four, including Best Talk Show." Kappa 10:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you have to be an admin for your opinion to count here but I feel that the article should either be expanded or blended in with the main Ellen DeGeneres article. Dismas 10:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone can vote, especially if they have an edit history. I agree that if it's not improved, it should be redirected back to the main article, but a cleanup tag will give it a chance. Kappa 11:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep/cleanup. Notable (as this sure is) hosted talk shows always have their own articles once somebody gets around to it. See Late Night with David Letterman, The Late Show with David Letterman, The Jerry Springer Show, Open Mike with Mike Bullard, The Mike Bullard Show, the surprisingly short Oprah... Samaritan 12:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup, notable. Gazpacho 11:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I was a bit trigger-happy putting the speedy delete on it. I meant that the existing content was simply a ramble, not that the show isn't notable. Cleanup would certainly be a more suitable tag. mordemur 11:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bogus nomination as per Wikipedia deletion policy. VFD is not Cleanup.--Centauri 12:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is notable enough, but wrong place to put it. Inter 13:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cleanup, expand. --JuntungWu 14:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This and several similar recent nominations indicate to me that the message as to what VfD is has still not got through. Please read the deletion policy, and nominate only things you think qualify for deletion. And similarly for speedy delete. There are many discussion pages. Use them. They (and the policy pages) are all there to be used. Andrewa 14:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs expansion, cleanup, and some attribution to make is seem a little less POV. But the series certainly is worthy of an article. 23skidoo 15:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable, but needs cleanup and expansion.  I'm still ROFL over "public lesbian". &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 16:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No case to answer. - RedWordSmith 17:55, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. This listing is a blatant abuse of VfD and the submitter should be censured.  GRider\talk 19:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that I pro forma submitted this to VfD because I disagreed about the tag someone put to an old, crappy version of this article. There is a long practise of putting borderline or disputed CSDs to VfD and the "Advice for administrators" in Speedy deletions suggests this also. From the edit history of the person who tagged it as speedy it is clearly obvious he made a newbie mistake, not a deliberate act of vandalism. Please investigate the circumstances more closely next time you are inclined to yell "abuse". jni 08:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on precedent we have articles about these type of shows.   But I don't think the person who nominated this deserves censure.  It seems quite reasonable not to have articles on the "Joe Bloggs Show" when there is already an article on Joe Bloggs.   That is not how Wikpedia has decided things, but a person shouldn't be faulted for not realizing that, especially in this case where the article was originally pretty bad.  --BM 22:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a pretty big (reletively speaking) deal. humblefool&reg; 00:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Definite keep. I can't imagine why anyone would want to delete this.  RickK 00:57, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid topic, significant show, high likelihood of expansion. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Popular and critically acclaimed talk show with notable host. Capitalistroadster 07:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since there are zero votes other than 'keep' (including nomination itself), I'm going to delist this from VfD during today (after the 1 day absolute minimum time has elapsed) unless someone objects. jni 08:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I was the one that slapped speedy-delete on this article, and now realise that I was in error. I was on a New Pages clean-up spree at the time and slapped on it because the original text was crap, certainly not because the show itself is not notable. As above, I noted that a cleanup tag is much more suitable in circumstances like these and I will do so in future. Thanks jni for the understanding of my newbie mistake. mordemur 09:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page shouldn't even be on VFD. -- Judson 23:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd vote keep too, but really, there was an unassailable consensus after the first ten, so why go to the trouble of adding another? &mdash;Korath (Talk) 12:44, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)