Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tench

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 - I also note suspeceted sockpuppetry used to "vote" keep. I also noted that a few known and notable inclusionists also wanted to delete it and can't see how the quality of the "keeps" could possibly cause a non consensus. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Tench

The article was created to promote an as-yet-unaired television program on Australian television, and Wikipedia is being used inappropriately as part of a "viral marketing" campaign. Whoby 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 03:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No description of the notability of this advertising campaign or the subject of the advertising.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cnwb 06:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The article may have relevance after a successful season of the show, but it definitely doesn't now. Don't Spam Wikipedia! Ansell 06:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- not yet. I also removed the broken link in the article to what I suspect was / is the official website. - Longhair 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It -- it's a TV show. And it's coming soon. No doubt it looks bleak now, but it will fill as the show comes to air. Wikipedia is informing the public about what they know. What exactlty is the problem? Everything starts with viral marketing. Just remove the quotes and write 'David Tench is a character on an upcoming TV show, promoted via viral marketing. More news as it comes to hand.' And isn't this supposed to be a discussion? You can't just nominate without reason. - TV Watcher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.20.218 (talk • contribs).
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It does not speculate on things. This marketing campaign is also not independently verifiable, by definition. When it becomes famous it may be verifiable, and when it is famous it won't be speculation. Ansell 08:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Dionyseus 09:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all upcoming shows and their will-be-one-day stars. Just zis Guy you know? 12:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a TV show. It is coming soon. crystal ball takes this into consideration with clause 1. The advertisements appearing on TV are verifiable and the article should reflect that, not the whole lot deleted. The show is going to come on air soon [1] (search for David Tench on page). What does deleting it now achieve? Just make sure we keep the marketing hype out of it. Yay unto the Chicken 13:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep After seeing the quotes on TV I wanted to find out more info and Wikipedia was the first place I looked. I don't think this is a marketing thing any more than having a page about a well known tv show is marketing. --202.7.183.131 13:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • An article entirely based on a marketing campaign with no tv show is not comparable to a show which has been running for two years that has plots and characters and spin-offs to report about. Wikipedia is for compiling reports on these things. Ansell 23:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If, after airing, it becomes notable (read: NOT immediately after its first airing & has a reasonable audience), perhaps the article can be recreated. Srose (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. Recreation if/when this show actaully airs is perfectly acceptible.--Isotope23 14:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete. I submitted the page for deletion, so my vote for delete probably speaks for itself. For the admin who reviews this, a couple of thoughts ... 1. on the David Tench discussion page someone has already noted that " ... the shows producers or Network Ten are clearly using wikipedia as a means of promotio ... if they continue reverting the content to marketroid speak I think this page needs locking or deletion .." and 2. two of the Keep votes on this page contain identical text ... "It is a TV show. It is coming soon." and "it's a TV show. And it's coming soon." ... given one of them is anonymously logged, it's not unreasonable to suggest that both keep votes come from the same source. The show, if and when it airs, should be recorded by Wikipedia, but under it's correct program title, and not under the banner of the network's pre-broadcast marketing. (Whoby 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

1. I am not the same person: Hang on... So because I re-iterate a comment someone made before, I'm suddenly the same person now? For the admin who decides this, please assume good faith and disregard Whoby's statement that everyone who wants this article kept is the same person (the same way I assume that everyone who raises Crystal Ball is not a Whoby sock-puppet). For the record, I do not work for Channel 10 or any associated media group. I simply came here to see if Wikipedia knew anything more about "David Tench" than I did.

2. This is not Crystal Balling: The reality is that David Tench IS an upcoming TV show. This is a verified fact. The show is coming soon (within the next month or so if the information we have to go by is correct). The article on Thank God You're Here started as nothing more than a stub [2] 5 days before the show premiered (which was the same time information was known about what it would be) and certainly not "2 years after it had plots and characters". As I also said before Wikipedia is not a crystal ball takes this into consideration quite clearly in its opening line where it states All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.. This event is verifiable and the subject matter (a TV show) would be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article had it already aired.

3. People are coming here for this information: It is clear that people are coming to Wikipedia to find more information about this show. What's better, nothing or a stub which clearly states "this is an upcoming TV show which Andrew Denton is behind"? If you delete the article now, it will be re-created in a few short months with the information about the marketing campaign likely mentioned under an appropriate sub-heading. Deleting the article now achieves nothing other than disappointing those who come here looking for what little further information there currently is. Yes, let's keep the marketing copy out of it (like we do many other Wikipedia articles). Yes, let's keep it to what we can verify. But no, let's not delete it simply to have it re-created a few days later when more information comes out. And if at such time a new name for the tv show becomes known, it is a simple matter to move the page to the correct title at that time. Yay unto the Chicken 00:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Question: is David Tench a TV show or a person in a TV show? As I have said, when and if the show materialises it will get its due, but Wikipedia explicitly says it should not be used as a marketing or advertising service. This isn't a question of what you want, or what I want, it's very, very simple: Wikipedia has rules, and the David Tench entry seems in clear breach of them. IF the character of David Tench becomes noteworthy AFTER the show launches, then he (like the show) will get his due. The issue here is that Channel Ten are trying to use Wikipedia as part of their pre-launch viral marketing campaign. They've said as much in Australian newspapers. If people are curious about the ads, they can Google them. That's what Google is for. (Whoby 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

"Is David Tench a TV show or a person in a TV show?". David Tench is "[a] character [who] will be bringing a talk show to Channel Ten later in the year" [3]. Whether the show is named after that character is yet to be known. If and when enough information about the character and the TV show warrant a separate article on both, then that will occur in due course. For now, a single article which refers to both is sufficient.

"Wikipedia explicitly says it should not be used as a marketing or advertising service". In what way does the current article advertise or market the program? Its current revision [4] states the known facts, discusses the marketing campaign and has example quotes from that campaign. As per Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia's "rules" state "Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style". IMHO, the article currently meets that requirement. Wikipedia is allowed to talk about marketing campaigns (Pepsi Challenge).

"IF the character of David Tench becomes noteworthy AFTER the show launches, then he (like the show) will get his due". My argument is that the expected event is of sufficient interest that an article is warranted now. We know it is about an upcoming Television show. We know the event is going to happen. We have no reason to believe otherwise or assume this is a hoax. Such television shows (like upcoming films) are notable articles. No, I don't like that Channel 10 are trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. However, like many other pages on Wikipedia whom people choose to abuse, it is up to the rest of us to ensure that non-biased, verifiable information is present and that all links to non-verified "fan-sites" or "presumed official sites" are removed, along with speculation. We should not delete the whole article simply because Channel 10 has chosen to abuse it. Yay unto the Chicken 03:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree to the previous post. Someone please rebutt. Also note that a new commercial has come out stating that David Tench is a character on the show. I'd like to understand how people who have not seen the commercials (i.e. do not live in Australia) are fully informed to vote? - 60.241.20.218 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Could Whoby please source his/her statement that Channel Ten ARE using Wikipedia as marketing. obviously if this is true it changes the debate. Caecilius 15:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Keep As above, I checked wikipedia after seeing the quotes on television. Drett 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --PresN 18:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Many people are interested in the quotes on TV. This is one sources where people can make a list of the quotes and read them. The TV is reportedly going to start in the next few weeks. Might as well keep the site. No reason to get rid of it. 144.137.14.43 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And when the show launches, it will duly get an entry under its title. And if the character of David Tench is interesting or noteworthy, he might get one too. The issue here is that the TV channel is using Wikipedia as part of a viral marketing campaign before it has launched - something which is expressly forbidden. The page, as it is, should be deleted. (Whoby 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC))
    • o Using Wikipedia how exactly? By it publishing examples of quotes? Fine. Comment them out. The quotes are just one section. But the whole article is not a marketing gimmick. - 60.241.20.218 07:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• So far, there has been one mention of this in the Sydney Daily Telegraph television column. The intro states "Ten is still hoping that details of its new show from Andrew Denton's production company Zapruder's Other Films will fly under the radar at least for a while yet. But more bits and pieces are leaking out about the show which, for fun, let's call David Tench At Ten, Tench being the host of the show." There is very little hard information available about the show with a source speculating that the host will be different with speculation that Tench may be animated ala Max Headroom. The short article concludes "The show will be recorded Thursdays at Fox Studios and an August start is tipped." For now, the article should be deleted with no bias against recreation once we have more information about it. Delete.Capitalistroadster 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Modify (or even better, comment out for future use) -- delete (or <!-- comment out just in case they may be used in a subheading after the show is popular) the quotes that apparently make this entry a marketing gimmick. Leave the introduction and what is known (what was said in the Daily Telegraph). Then stub it.  : 60.241.20.218 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep i agree with the idea of stubbing it rather than deleting it only to recreate it later. it is still an article of obvious interest - i myself went here after seeing the ads; there is no problem describing a marketing campaign unbiasedly (which is another discussion altogether); and i feel wikipedia has no problem being an evolving organism that is to have a "David Tench" page for the show and person before details of the show with a probably different name and therefore article, to be filled in later, have surfaced. Caecilius 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the page. Seems silly to remove it. The page has content and people visited. Smilyandrew 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - only a handful of edits.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 07:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - obvious interest in the show. What is the point in removing it and creating it a few weeks later? Pcpp 08:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The point is that then there will be something to put in the article. Currently the article lacks references. It goes directly against the primary verifiability policy that wikipedia needs to keep an image as an accurate resource. Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Henry Bigg 1986 09:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why?? Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I didn't know what David Tench was, but I searched here and found it first hit, this is what wikipedia is about, information about everything. - ScipioII 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • Comment has only a few edits.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is about putting together verifiable information about things. The article can be nothing more than a series of speculations until the show comes out, in this name or another. Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' This page will just come back when the show airs anyway, with infromation about the viral marketing. People will only come to this page after they've seen the ads, this wont help the viral marketing. I know I came here to find out about David Tench. Ted BJ 13:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not seem to be able to find verifiable references for this show. Go to a blog or search engine if you want to find out about speculation. Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I came to wikipedia to find out more about the show and so have other people. Someone is going to recreate the article later when the show airs. Other future television programs are allowed to have their own article then why not this one? Erica Wellance 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • After the show screens the article could have some content, instead of being full of uncited weasel words. Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As far as I can see, as long as the article stays neutural, it's not providing advertising for Channel Ten. There have been new ads-I only manged to see the end of one, but it does appear that David Tench is going to host/star in a show. This article is not doing anyone any harm, and as long as it doesn't turn into a list of speculations, it seems fine for Wikipedia. --Gunny01 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The article as it has been all along has been uncited speculation. Citing a "Chaser" article and putting up a screenshot of one of the advertisements are not enough to keep an article within the core policies of wikipedia, notably, the verifiability policy and the no original research policy. Ansell 02:25, 17 July 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.