Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother Australia series 6

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 speedy keep, and fact that most other Big Brother series' have successful articles like this one, which is still in progress until the series ends. — FireFox 18:11, 27 June '06

[edit] Big Brother Australia series 6

Reason the page should be deleted:

This article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

• WP:CSD#A7 - Unremarkable people and vanity pages which do not assert the importance or significance of the subject.
• WP:NPOV - This article is helplessly non-encyclopedic, please refer to the discussion, consensus, etc.
• WP:BIO - None of the people mentioned in this article have any historic significance.
• WP:NOT - This web site being built on WP looks more like an advertisment for the show than anything one might see on television itself (in one frame).
• WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of lists of times of unremarkable people doing unremarkable things in a house one night until the next day when all of tense needs to be edited again because it was written in current or the future tense in such a hurry that all the run on sentences say is and are and was and will, but nobody has a clue which tense is/was/will supposed to be corrected because only one guy watches the show.

If only completed programs were considered facts, then the only people writing about them would be the people interested.

and therefore serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep probably needs cleanup, but an article about a specific season of a popular show, especially a reality show with a changing cast, is pretty standard. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 15:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to:
• Speedy Keep as per WP:POINT.--Nscheffey^(T/C) 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Upon review I think this AfD nomination might be bad faith. The article's talk page shows that User:Ste4k has been involved in all manner of arguments over the tense of the page, reliable sources, etc, for a week, and now he puts the page up for deletion? Could this be an edit war gone nuclear? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

He did actually say he was considering nominating the article for deletion; but I didn't think he would actually do it. --JD^talk_email 16:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment you haven't believed or listened to a single thing I've had to say since I started working on the project, and I object to your insistance on referring to peoples' gender incorrectly. I spent hours cleaning up per policy and I refuse to participate in revert wars. There is nothing wrong with putting up an article for review by its peers. And it is clear to me that you prefer the vanity of the article rather than its encyclopedic value. Removing tags for maintenance is a manner of keeping other editors from joining it. The only possible reason you could have for reverting maintenance tags which were placed in good faith is to protect the aesthetic value of a yet to complete web page. I purposely call the entry a web page rather than an article for one specific reason. This is an article. And this is a disgrace. The content belongs in a transwiki project that may or may not exist. But it certainly isn't encyclopedic, cannot pass any of those policies listed above, and in my serious opinion is that it's a candidate for speedy delete based on item one. The amount of time that one wastes creating an aesthetically pleasing list of unnotable people hasn't anything to do with the reason that it belongs in an encyclopedia. Ste4k 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment The tense decision was decided by consensus of the people working on the project and can be noted in green. The overall outcome of that decision was to have an encyclopedic tense. (past) Ste4k 17:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're being very hypocritical. The tense was agreed upon, but the closer made quite clear that things that will never change, relationships being an example, should be written in present tense. Despite this, you still went ahead and changed everything into past tense again. If you really want to be the guy that trys to put me down by making me look like a fool and the person that wants only what he wants, go ahead. But I will always tell the facts, as they are.

And as for the BB01 article, I've already told you; that article was made earlier this year. You can't possibly expect perfect information for a television series that happened 5 years ago; especially when there's next to no chance of re-runs. --JD^talk_email 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems to confirm my fears. AfD is not for "putting up an article for review by its peers." That's what Wikipedia:RFC and Wikipedia:Requests for feedback are for. As far as I can tell there is no way this AfD nom will pass. If you nominated for deletion knowing this then it is certainly bad faith. If you were genuinely confused as to the purpose of AfD then I understand and apologize. Otherwise I think this is a purposeful waste of time by a person with a very small minority agenda. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 17:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep You can't put up a single Big Brother article up, and leave all the others. That is just not right. There's loads more articles about previous and present Big Brother shows, why don't you go around nominating them all for nominations as well? I'm sure Big Brother UK series 7 would interest you. There's nothing wrong with this article, it's no different to the current UK Big Brother article. The people are the subject. The article doesn't use POV. If these people have no historic significance, then again, look at all the other Big Brother articles. --JD^talk_email 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent, though I would support a merging of the different seasons into one big article, too. 23skidoo 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The previous seasons were all part of the BBAU article, but somewhere along the line they were all split up. --JD^talk_email 16:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. David L Rattigan 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent. Kirjtc2 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP per precedent... Please allow time for articles to develop -- NickSentowski 17:58, 27 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.