Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television show casting changes

:{{la|List of television show casting changes}} ([{{fullurl:List of television show casting changes|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television show casting changes}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Now, when I first came onto Wikipedia a few years ago, I used to defend the deletion of articles like this (because don't get me wrong; it is entertaining). And although I do remember a lot of these changes, the article is really a whole lot of listcruft with a clear blur of fact and fiction throughout, not to mention original research. And as far as the four(?!) references the article has, one is a blog for an unsourced wiki and the other three are dead links. Also, the only external link is to jumptheshark.com, which is not a reliable source. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment. I forgot to mention that maybe the article can be retained if some real sources can be added. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Wow, that is some list(cruft). Drmies (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. Has information in it that needs to be saved. This information is not in other articles. 143.165.8.50 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

::: You should go ahead and register a screen name if you want your comment to be fully considered. Rather than "don't delete", you can preface your comment with "keep". Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• ...- Wow. I just don't know. On one hand, it does seem to be a valid encylopedic concept that should be covered. On the other hand, the execution seen here is just... I don't know how to describe it. Its certainly not encyclopedic. Some of it I think can be sourced (the information on Doctor Who, or Chuck Cunningham, for example), but in order to be a valid article, most of it would have to go out the window. Consider me undecided. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Way too broad a topic, unsourced, impossible to keep up to date or to properly police for accuracy. The anon's comment about "don't lose the information" is irrelevant because this is the type of information that most likely IS included in the articles on the appropriate series, or can be added. I don't even think the topic is encyclopedic because the concept that TV series change cast members from time to time is not notable in any way. There are some series that are notable by their cast changes, such as Law & Order and Doctor Who, while some cast changes generate short-term notability (i.e. Grissom leaving CSI is big news this month). But any such notability can and should be discussed in the appropriate series article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and 23skidoo. This topic is too diffuse, including not just changes where different actors played the same character, but changes where an actor left and a different actor was brought in to play a different character who served a similar function, and even actors leaving and not being replaced by anyone. I wouldn't want to discourage the existence of separate articles that deal with the more interesting aspects of this topic -- for example, Chuck Cunningham is interesting because not only did his character cease to appear on the show, but his existence was written out of the show's continuity. But trying to list all, or even most, of the comings and goings of actors on television series for the past sixty years or so has not generated a quality article, nor is it likely to ever do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete reasons well covered by others. There's no reason for this minutiae to be here. JuJube (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As far as "show business" is concerned, replacing a cast member is just as much "business" as it is "show". Keeping the viewers watching is critical to the revenue generated by advertising sales and future syndication. I'm going to take on the nominator's challenge and try to add some relevant sources. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above concerns with WP:SALAT. Themfromspace (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rework Casting changes are far too common, which would make this list unmaintainable. It's better to cover casting changes in the relevant show articles. Something that I would support is a list of roles that were played by different characters, because that is far less common (outside of Doctor Who, that is). - Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• delete. Can't see a good way to save that. Most of the articles already have the relevant material. Metropolitan also makes good arguments above. ThuranX (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I am nominating Very special episode for the same reason, and that article doesn't have any sources. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It doesn't take original research to note that something is "television show cast change" and the topic has certainly been addressed by reliable sources, though perhaps not as comprehensively as this article. But I have no doubt that most, if not all, of the facts in this list are verifiable. Also, that citations have dead links is no reason to delete the article, as the citations are clear enough to find the articles. That they are called "blogs" does not mean they are not reliable sources, especially when they are published on a reputable newspaper's website. If back issues of TV Guide were available online, I have no doubt we would find a plethora of source material to support this article. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• More sources: "[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CO&s_site=charlotte&p_multi=CO&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=109B251FCDE2B189&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Chucked Out! The Shadowy Character From `Happy Days']" in The Charlotte Observer; "[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LA&p_theme=la&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EF66BCC2BB3A33F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Recent Bail-outs Follow In Some Lofty Footsteps]" in the Daily News of Los Angeles; and "[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1006111,00.html Extreme Makeovers]" in Time magazine. DHowell (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• A blog and a back issue are not the same thing. And those "sources" are from subscription-based sites. How are we supposed to know what they even say? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:16, 13 January 2009 (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.