Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who (3rd nomination)

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MickMacNee (talk | contribs) at 01:51, 14 August 2009 (→Discussion: rp to J Rowe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:51, 14 August 2009 by MickMacNee (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: rp to J Rowe)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The AfD list to your right is wrong. Due to an intervening name change, it's difficult to get the template to link to the previous AfDs. Correct links follow:

On reviewing the previous two rounds of voting the consensus isn't to keep or delete so much as it is to reference the article. And this has not been done over the years that this article has been undergoing continuous rounds of scrutiny. As of today, there are a piddling three references for the entire article, and two of these references are the end credits of "Journey's End" — hardly a source independent of the subject.

"Fame" can't be referenced

I suspect the reason that it's not been referenced is that it cannot be referenced. Just look at the way the list is set up. The meat of the list is the "fame" column. How can you reference "fame"? When I think of, say, Tom Hanks, I know, anecdotally, that he's famous. But what's he famous for? That rather depends on who's answering. For some people his fame derives from Bosom Buddies, for others it's Saving Private Ryan, for still others it's Apollo 13. And that's a genuinely well-known actor. Trying to assign a few titles to an actor's career is, of necessity, a subjective thing, dependent entirely upon the writer's memory.

And let's face it, this list really just tries too damn hard. I mean, seriously: George Coulouris is hardly famous — today — for Citizen Kane, nor can his "prominence" as a stage actor in the middle of the 20th century be today reliably referenced or assessed. Hell, he wasn't even "famous" for Kane when he appeared, some 23 years after the fact, in The Keys of Marinus. Not one person out of a hundred knew who he was then, and the figure's probably less now.

So that's one problem: "fame" is a matter of subjectivity. Or, to put it in Wiki terms: this is an article which can never be reliably sourced.

The dreadful title

But another is the title. We're led to believe, by the title, that we'll be given a list of appearances in Doctor Who. But the article goes on to give us people from even the darkest corners of the Whoniverse. It can't make up its mind as to what its focus is, but the fact that it's been trying for years leads me to believe it never will. Moreover, there are real problems with the words "celebrity" and "notable". This directly offends WP:LISTNAME, which says, quite clearly that lists should be about one thing (a list of Xs, not a list of Xs and Ys). WP:LISTNAME also specifically warns against the words "famous", "noted', or "prominent". In other words, we've got a list here which basically offends every part of the WP:LISTNAME guideline. That should be a pretty red flag that our list isn't worth pursuing.

The topic

Note that I'm not saying that we should try to find a better name. I'm saying it's not worth doing. But so does WP:SALAT and WP:NOT. WP:SALAT says that you could create a "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", but that you should be prepared to defend why such a list "contributed to the state of human knowledge". It strikes me "list of celebrity and notable appearances on Doctor Who" isn't much different. In the whole of the arguments in the previous two AfDs, I saw nothing which really justified how this list gives us anything useful. The vast majority of the KEEP votes were either marked weak keep or possessed of a lot of other qualifying language. Most of the people arguing for "keep" were really saying, "Keep, if you can reference it or edit it heavily". No one has really said why we need this list.

Indeed, WP:NOTDIRECTORY speaks directly against this list. To quote:

Misplaced Pages articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y".

I dunno about you, but that sounds exactly like what our list is trying to be: People who are from a cultural group (celebrity) employed by Doctor Who (and TW, and SJA, and BF) producers.

I suppose there are a ton of other objections, but that's enough for now, surely. Vote to delete this article which fails multiple Misplaced Pages guidelines. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I admit that as a non-British person, I may not be able to gauge exactly how famous most of these people are, but most of their names mean absolutely nothing to me. The most famous people on the list, The Beatles, are there only because a film clip of their appearance on Top of the Pops was shown in "The Chase" after their manager Brian Epstein refused to have the band appear on the show. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - AfD is not for cleanup, no matter how much clean up is needed. Someone should remove the fame column right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep Whether you personally know who they are or not is not relevant. They seem notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles, and thus their notability has been established elsewhere. This list of blue links that all have something relevant in common, is fine by Misplaced Pages standards. Dream Focus 04:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep While some of these people may not seem particularly well-known (though doubtless many are better known in Britain), they all seem to have been deemed Notable enough to have their own articles here. I'm not sure we really needed this List, but since its been written, I don't see sufficient justification to warrant its Deletion. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep as per KevinOKeeffe McMarcoP (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - How you define 'celebrity' is dubious and in this case not encyclopedic. I also find little reason for this overlong article, lists should be factual - this is largely POV.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I think my !vote from the second AFD still is as valid as it was back then. Most of the reasons listed for deletion are reasons for cleanup and we all know that AFD is not cleanup, per Peregrine Fisher above. Furthermore, WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply in this case. The policy is against indiscriminate lists of loosely or non-connected topics. This is a list with a clear focus that just is in bad need of cleanup and maybe a rename. We have others such lists, like List of guest stars on The Simpsons, which are perfectly acceptable and as such, even arguing a bit of WP:OSE is allowed here. This is a nomination that indicates a certain dissatisfaction by the cleanup that was not done after the last AFD (that being somebody else's problem in many !voters' eyes) but nevertheless, the reasons put forward are not reasons that allow deletion, nor should they. The nominator should be advised to use their time instead in trying to rectify those problems - per WP:BEFORE. Regards So Why 11:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: As the nominator, I do feel compelled to jump in here and state that I know "AfD is not cleanup". As stated in the nominating text, I don't believe the article can be cleaned up. It has little focus, as is admitted by the call to give it "maybe a rename" and to "remove the fame column right now". Doing these two things would transform it into a mere "List of guest stars on Doctor Who" — a different list altogether. Would a list of guest stars actually be notable? If so, how would "guest star" be defined? All the way down to the people who got one line? What would be the point/notability of that list?

I do not accept that WP:OSE applies in the affirmative here at all, especially when giving List of guest stars on The Simpsons as an example. That list is a totally different kettle of fish. That celebrities appear on The Simpsons is a part of the show's gestalt, and their copious appearance has in itself been made notable by the existence of a Guinness World Record for that very fact. There is no such notability attached to the fact that jobbing actors won a role on Doctor Who. No one could reasonably assert that DW trades on the fact that it has celebrity guests. The highest-rating "celebrities" have generally been returning regulars (Daleks, Cybermen, former Doctors and companions). Sure, it's cool that Jeremy Bulloch played two roles on DW. But he didn't get either role because of his fame as Boba Fett. Indeed, until JNT, few actors were chosen for their celebrity. If you whittled this list down to people who were chosen for their celebrity, it might have 20 names on it. Tops. Most guest starring actors were chosen because they were, in fact: a) whom the director thought would be "right" for the role; and b) contractually available for the role. In fact, there are virtually no such general "guest star" lists on Misplaced Pages, at least according to Category:Lists of celebrities. The only one comparable is one with comparatively few edits and nary a scrap of discussion: List of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars. So I'm not really sure that "other stuff exists" to such a degree that it could be positively argued here. WP:OSE actually applies in the negative here, in the sense that just because other crap exists (TAGS guest star list) doesn't mean we should emulate it. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 13:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that many entries need to be removed, especially those who were not cast because of their fame. But there are quite a few on that list that were cast exactly for being famous before, like Kylie Minogue, Anthony Stewart Head, Simon Pegg or Richard Dawkins. Such names are quite eligible to populate a list of guest stars on DW and thus this list itself should exist. That it's full of other entries does not make the list deletable. Regards So Why 13:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume you can prove it with reliable sources. I don't think you could, mind, but let's say you could find sources which directly and neutrally said, "X actor was exclusively cast because they were famous." Is that the consensus for what people want the article to be? The evidence of the static nature of this problem-filled list is to the contrary. See, I don't believe, as you've asserted, that people believe it's "not their problem". I think it's that there's no agreement on what the list should be. I think the majority of editors seem to want it to be a list of everybody in Doctor Who who was, or who became, even marginally famous. And that list simply can't be referenced. The tension between what you think the list is (people cast because they were already famous) and what the list has been from the start (a list of everyone with a marginal stake in celebrity) is exactly why I say it's unfocused and therefore unsalvageable. User:MickMacNee has just moved the title to a simple "List of guest appearances", which only further proves the point that people are not in agreement with your idea of what the article is. Now, by sort of "cementing" this idea of a general "guest star" list with a title change, the article's even less notable than would be your "celebrity/stunt casting" idea. Indeed, the list has a year-and-a-half-old problem tag — and a discussion page full of objections dating back to 2005 — cause no one knows how to make it better. When an article can't be improved, and it falls well short of Wiki guidelines, it's time to delete. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 13:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete Fame is hard to define, "notable guest appearances" doubly so. Almost every actor in the series appeared in other things, and most have their own article as a result. There are a handful of times when the series did cast an existing big name, but most of the entries are based on subsequent careers and it's very hard to say just how famous someone has been, especially when the show in question is long gone. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep The list is fairly well-focused, even if the name is iffy, and it's not all that hard to define celebrity in terms of WP:Notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete There was a spate of celebrity guests in DW in the 80s (ie they were cast for "being famous" rather than for being an actor just right for a particular role - usually light entertainment stars like Beryl Reid or Ken Dodd. These are fairly reffable. Same might go for eg Kylie Minogue, but this list can't stand if there's no clear boundary between "cast for being famous" and "cast for being an actor"- where do Simon Pegg fit? This list cannot be maintained as a distinct group (fame, as stated above, is not quantifiable). I tried cropping this list back ages ago but I've given up. move it to tardiswiki and they can play with it. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Note:I just moved the article from List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who to List of guest appearances in Doctor Who per WP:LISTNAME MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Lack of references for appearances are not grounds for deletion, and are self-referencing (anybody with a copy of the show can satisfactorally verify an entry). References for the general topic at hand, that guest appearances on DW get third party notice are easy to find. I have renamed the list, because although the nominator is correct that 'celebrity' is POV, notable isn't, therefore, now that issue is removed, there is no reason for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see what the problem is. The criteria for inclusion should be that the person is notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article about them. I also don't see any particular problem with the "Fame" column, although it should probably be renamed. Does anyone really dispute that Anthony Stewart Head is famous for being Giles in Buffy, or that Kylie Minogue is a "popstar and actress"? john k (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Just because you can create a list with blue-linked articles doesn't mean that you should. The point is absolutely not that the person is notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article about them, but whether the list is notable. I could make a list of "colors of applesauce", as the example above says. All those colors would have articles about them. Bt the list, overall, isn't notable. Worse, this list is actually charting two variables, which offends WP:LISTNAME. Changing the name of the list, as has just been done, causes less offense to WP:LISTNAME, but it doesn't in itself magically make the content of the list valuable. As stated above, the article will now have to define how it chooses what a "guest star" is. How many lines does it take to be a "guest star"? As it stands, the new title of the list would seem to indicate that we list all guest starts who ever appeared on the program Doctor Who. Do we want to do that? Is that really notable? And what about all the DW spin-off stuff? Is it important to note who's guest starred in BF, SJA, TW? The parameters of the list must be simple, straightforward, and universally understood by all users. They aren't, and they can't be. Hence the list is a matter of the POV of its editors. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep- As has been stated previously, by people more eloquent than I, the problems presented in the AFD are that of cleanup, not matters for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep My gut feeling is that the list will be useful to a number of people and will probably be used to resolve endless numbers of drunken arguments. Can't see that it actually does any harm. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
keep Many of these are easily sourceable. For example, Richard Dawkins appearance received international news coverage . The lack of sourcing present in the article is not an argument for deletion but an argument for clean up. The list also is not indiscriminate since one can use sourcing directly for who has been reported as guests on the show. Moreover, the topic is notable given that Doctor Who is one of the longest running television shows ever. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
keep Needs clean-up and sourcing - which is editorial and not administrative work... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Whole article is a waste of time and space (sorry). Bar for inclusion is ludicrously low, making it effectively a very incomplete list of every actor or actress ever to appear in Dr Who. Even if trimed out it would be total fancruft. If a celebrity appearance was notable then the correct place to note it is in the article about the relevent episode, as that is where the majority of people would go to look for it. By itself there is no purpose for this article to exist, not even for resolving druken arguments after the pub.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Cameron Scott. As for "waste of time and space" - it will only be a waste of time for the previous editors if the article is deleted (I really dislike AfD nominations for long-standing, much-edited articles such as this, rather than going through a more reasonable, less destructive route first), and as for waste of space... Stephenb (Talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - "notable" has no third party reliable definition, and therefore the list should be deleted, this article fails WP:V and I can see no method by which it can meet the standard for inclusion Fasach Nua (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable is no longer in the title of the article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - there's no real need for verifying that someone is famous now as I scrubbed the "fame" column to match the new title. There's nothing else to cite but the appearance of these actors/actresses in Doctor Who, which would be an easy if lengthy task. The article itself though seems rather unwieldy, which would be my main point of contention with it's structure. I just don't see what it provides other than a big list to trawl through. Alastairward (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Reluctant delete under current title. When the article was trying to be a list of celebrity guests in Doctor Who, although the criterion was slightly nebulous, it did have some meaning and potential interest. It also would have been possible to verify that "celebrities who have appeared in Doctor Who" was a topic of interest in the culture at large (I seem to recall, when Kylie Minogue was in the programme, the British media having sidebars about other celebs and notable figures who'd appeared in the show). But a list of guest stars who have appeared in Doctor Who is simply too broad a topic, and heads towards being an indiscriminate directory. Doctor Who has been on television for 46 years, with over 30 seasons, over 750 episodes and over 200 stories. A list of all the guest stars in Doctor Who would contain thousands of entries. The subject is just too broad for Misplaced Pages's purposes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- List of guest stars on The Simpsons manages it with a show that has 21 seasons and 441 episodes. It's not that big a step to DW's 30 seasons. I think the task can be manageable with sub-articles for each Doctor (except the 8th maybe). What do you think? Regards So Why 22:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I don't really know for sure, but I would be very surprised if there ate 'thousands' of actors with WP articles that made guest appearances on DW. MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories: