Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behind Big Brother Australia

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 of the debate was delete. Among the established users here (i.e. who have numerous other contributions apart from contributing to this debate) the consensus is quite clear. I have looked at the media reference provided as an argument (here), but the mention of this website is very small and past precedent is that media coverage of that nature is insufficient to establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Behind Big Brother Australia

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

It seems that the purpose of this article is for advertisement. This should not be allowed. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not an advertising resource. -- ChrisW

NOTE: The votes on this page were reordered by User:RealityJunkie7 to collect keep and delete comments together. Please do not do this. See WP:AFD#AfD etiquette - Motor (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is a notable fan site. No evidence that the article was created for the purposes of advertisement. -- Barrylb 10:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I created the BBBA page. I have also created various other Big Brother pages including Greg Mathew, David Mathew and Tim Brunero. The site in question is non-commercial, very popular, and is in opposition to the commercial Big Brother website. In fact the site is so popular, Australian Big Brother contestants are forbidden to mention it because it is significatant opposition the the offical Big Brother site. I am EXTREMELY suspicious that this is called for deletion only hours after it first appeared. I created the first draft in 15 minutes & I'll be adding additional content in coming days. Gtoomey 13:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment There's nothing to be suspicious about, new pages and recent changes are constantly monitored by wikipedians such as me, hundred of new pages are deleted every day, some of which through this procedure. Equendil Talk 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I find it very odd that there was a call for deletion hours after the page first appeared. I said in the comments that this was a first draft. This article has as much a place as any other Big Brother article I've contributed to. Gtoomey 21:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Read above again, there are people patrolling new pages all the time, a lot of articles are being proposed for deletion within minutes of them being created. Equendil Talk 06:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep In regards to the person who said that this isn't a well known site, in fact it is, with thousands of hits a week and 11,000 registered users on the forums you can hardly say it's an unpopular site. This article has been posted to inform users of the BBBA community information on the site and there is still more information to come. By the way, why does a site like Miniclip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniclip) receive allowance to have an article, if this is an encyclopedia then who gives a crap about a games website. You are contradicting yourselves here Wiki Nazis, let BBBA be! And for the record, there is thousands of sites here, so how can you honestly say Wikipedia isn't a listing for website history. Thanks. - realityJunkie RealityJunkie7 12:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, user's only edits are to this AFD. - Motor (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I find it funny you're only checking the credibility of the users who vote to keep, but not those who vote to delete. I've been on wikipedia numerous times and created this nick just recently so I could comment with my BBBA username. I'm not a newbie.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.67.233 (talk • contribs).
      • Comment, I'm checking them all. - Motor (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is the largest fan site for Big Brother Australia and one of the largest Big Brother fan sites in general. While I definately think the page could do with a good ol' cleanup and expansion, it should be kept. ChenBot 11:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, user has two edits... one to the encylopedia, one to this AFD. - Motor (talk)
    • Comment, My account has actually been around for a while. I just tend not to super care about making changes. ChenBot 14:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The Wikipedia entry was made by a member of the Behind Big Brother community at my request with the intention to provide a template for community members to document the history of the community and website. The Wiki entry was only created today and im saddened that trolls have already decided to attempt its removal. If there are any queries please contact us via vibes@behindbigbrother.com. Regards - Josh - Behind Big Brother Australia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.122.212 (talk • contribs).

This user, IP or 'Josh' has 5 edits, 3 on this AFD and two vandalism/nonsense edits.--Andeh 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it cites some interesting articles there. And while it's certainly not notable here in America, I'm willing think that perhaps it has some status in Aussie-land. --SeizureDog 12:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate, the site actually has had some noted media attention in the past here (Australia) and I have found it funny that some people in this discussion who don't even live in Oz are willing to dismiss it just because they never heard of it. Thanks for keeping an open mind (to at least give in principle the opporunity to expand the article and show why it is worthy of staying on the site). ChenBot 14:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It is a no profit website that is quite popular and allows groups of people to chat about BB. It has attracted controvesy and is quite informative. The request to delete this page because it is 'advertising' is a rubbish. BBBA stands to gain very little from the Wiki listing other than informing those who are interested. Should Rove McManus' page be deleted because it seeks to advertise him, his business and show? NO. Should any AFL team;s Wiki entry be deleted because it postively high lights its good work and skills because it could be seen as advertising or self promotion? NO. Should the BBBA wiki entry be deleted because it is simply providing info on a popular site? NO. Kirsty.maree 13:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, user's two edits are to this AFD. - Motor (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And thats right i have two (now three edits and all here.. thats because i only joined a few days a go... it isnt like i JUST joined. Kirsty.maree 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a well known site, fails WP:WEB, and wikipedia is not for storing meta information about web sites. Equendil Talk 10:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed with the comment above. The entry contains no relevant information and the site is not a notable resource. Josh, please stick with proper formatting for the deletion page. No, trolls have not come along. This is not a notable site and Wikipedia is simply not a directory listing for website history. 220.237.23.132 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, fails WP:WEB miserably. - Motor (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Motor. --Coredesat 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Equendil.--Andeh 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, as appears to fail WP:WEB, which requires multiple mentions in other media. Article asserts one mention, but I am unable to find this or other mentions. --JChap 16:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Motor.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 17:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think its notable enough, although if it were cleared up, had something worthwhile written on it and was sufficiently sourced it might be worth keeping. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is fair to vote for a delete then? Considering it is a new article that hasn't had enough time for this to happen. -- Barrylb 06:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, per WP:WEB - ballot stuffing notwithstanding. BoojiBoy 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note. I expect nobody will find it surprising that the "BBBA" website has a thread [1] (registration required) about this article, and several calls were made for members of the forum to come here and "vote" so that the entry is kept. One comment in particular from a member "And what I find amazing is a guy from France of all places is calling BBBA 'not notable'. Yeah, right... I suggest people here create accounts and vote to keep this page. Oh we should definately clean it up and expand it and turn it into a real good reference but we shouldn't lead some stupid frog who has never even seen an episode of BBAU dictate too us!". I suppose the "frog" is me. Equendil Talk 18:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Brother site. It's notable for its connection to a part of pop culture but so far doesn't seem to have sufficient notability to merit its own stand-alone article. Interlingua 20:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:I can't see the point in merging website information to that article. I don't think we need anymore reasons to delete this article after what Equendil has told us.--Andeh 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Pointless non-notable article. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard for websites Bwithh 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of evidence that it satisfies WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yup, delete it. obviously wikipedia is full of idiots and having a BBBA entry would just make the website look bad 59.167.122.212 00:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Only apprears to have recieved a bit of mention in passing from media. ENpeeOHvee 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence that it passes WP:WEB. The Seven News reference mentions it in passing only, not as the subject. Kevin 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - pretty much the major, if not only, dissenting voice to the BB media machine in Australia. -- Chuq 02:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• "dissenting voice to the BB media machine"?...LOL - I'm sorry, but I just had to wonder if you were actually saying that with a straight face. I mean it's not like we're talking a dissenting voice to a monopolistic news/information sourse laustv.com.auike FOX/CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS - we're talking about a silly reality TV show. The way most people "dissent" against them is to simply not watch them, ignore them, and not care about them. And this site isn't even a site opposing the show - it's a fan site! ENpeeOHvee 03:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And your experience with the Australian media is??? Big Brother is on up to 5 hours per day on prime time television, and BBBA is the major alternative to the official Endemol tv/radio/internet advertising blitz Gtoomey 10:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you are not familiar with the site. -- Barrylb 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the article about it and browsed through the site. I'm not sure what makes you think I'm "not familar"... ENpeeOHvee 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - it's in the same category as TVAus --bdude Talk 03:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough to keep. --Roisterer 12:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability issues, Wikipedia is not a metasite for all fansites. Jammo (SM247) 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - it's received media coverage on a channel independent from where it is shown. I would have thought that fulfilled WP:WEB? (JROBBO 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

The *show* has received media coverage, the web site is just barely acknowledged as existing. Equendil Talk 00:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the media coverage included an interview with admin/founder. --bdude Talk 08:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Motor and notability issues. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Filth, just like the Big Brother programme. michael ^talk 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- I actually use this site but apart from an external link on the main Big Brother (Australia) page, there isn't much use for an external entry on the article -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Not notable. Fansites do not deserve articles. --Musicpvm 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- agreeing with Chanlord, the external link at the Big Brother (Australia) article is sufficient. I don't think this website is deserving of its' own article. -- Longhair 07:26, 19 June 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.