Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 1)

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 keep. There is an overwhelming consensus to keep all. When I relisted last night, a quick glance showed several IP !votes along with what appeared to be a couple of SPA accounts. My apologies for the relist and a reminder that just because it's relisted it can be closed at any time. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 12:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 1)

)

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

)

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

WP:ALS

, since episode team dances, judges' scores and average/high/low team scores are unsourced.

Within the article:

WP:OR
manual calculations of average scores.
Couples' highest and lowest scoring performances
sections contain unsourced scores.
Weekly scores and songs
section contains unsourced scores for each individual dance and each separate jusdge.
- Although section does feature six external references, these links lead to TV.com articles, which give a brief, two to three sentence synopsis for the episode, similar to what is seen in TVGuide. These links do not provide
  WP:SIGCOV
  of individual episodes of the show.
Only other referenced information in the article is a source for television ratings for the premiere episode and how the show placed in ratings for the 2005 summer season.

This is not a television series with a story arc that is appropriate to be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of episode results from this television reality competition do not meet

WP:N

coverage for separate episodes.

Ample precedent that

WP:EPISODE

are discussed in similar AFDs, such as:

I am also nominating the following related pages because pages detailing season statistics for Dancing with the Stars seasons 2 through 19 are all similar and also fail

WP:ALS

guidelines discussed above:

Score summary, manual average calculations, highest/lowest scores, and weekly results (scores, dances & songs) sections all unsourced for seasons 1 through 19. In addition:

The season 6 article is completely unreferenced
The season 8 article contains one dead link ref
Some references in season 13 article give details about individual competitors on the program and their performance or injury within the season, but most are related to controversy over injuries or individual cast members. This proves that coverage of the program itself is notable, but does not meet
List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors
.
Season 14 contains additional unsourced tables of U.S. Nielsen ratings
Bulk of sources for seasons 10, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are for U.S. Nielsen ratings. Dance/episode results are unsourced.

AldezD (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

Discussion

KEEP - strongest possible keep. One of the more popular series on tv and you want to delete season articles? I didn't create them but I can't tell you how many times I've used these things. To me, even nominating all of them without even a whisper borders on Disruptive Editing. These are pretty darned well laid out. Certainly they could use more and better sourcing, as could 90% of wikipedia. But that isn't a reason to delete these. I can't even count how many articles there are on the Simpsons here at wikipedia...seems like 100. Heck, there are articles on single tv episodes. But you want to delete every season of DWtS? I am very shocked to find this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a game show, so reference to game show related AfDs are irrelevant. Regarding sourcing, TV episodes are reliable, primary sources and it is from these that episode information has been sourced. There is probably some information in the articles that is excessive, but AfD is not for cleanup. Dancing With the Stars is a seasonal TV series so it seems reasonable that individual season articles exist. This is standard practice for TV series that are not game shows so I don't see any reason why any of the listed articles should be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the most bad-faith nomination I've seen so far! .. Infact I agree with
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I admit the content is somewhat excessive but we're not a cleanup solution, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by nominator—The television program is notable, and contestants appearing are featured in
AldezD (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

These are all issues that should be addressed during normal cleanup and that is not what AfD is for. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response—Removing the information that falls under

AldezD (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't watch this series at all, but I have to disagree. Certainly, some of the table content is inappropriate. Instead, it should be converted to prose descriptions, which would not leave the article empty but again, this is cleanup, not an excuse to delete. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I totally agree with everyone! These articles can not be deleted! ~~They are very helpful to many people and fans of the show.~~ Sure there are issues on them (especially in the first seasons articles) but deleting them is not the solution. You could suggest a clean up or something but not deletion. And since the episodes are aired, they can be used as reliable sources for the scores. It's exactly like when everyone in WP removes the sources from episode TV shows' titles and who the director, writer etc is after they air; no further sourcing is needed for that. And like others noted, to just come and nominate all 19 articles for deletion just like that, is disruptive editing. TeamGale 16:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Single-season articles for extremely popular and long-running reality shows is quite an established practice on Wikipedia. There are articles for each season of
America's Got Talent, and so many others. Let's just accept it and move on. --Gccwang (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment—A

AldezD (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

KEEP..I'm from Europe and this articles are super helpful when you can't watch the show live and have to wait for the realese on internet..in meantime you can check the scores and dances..Please keep this articles for the love of god. The worst nomination for deletaion EVER!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.35.248 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — 89.142.35.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP - this could not be deleted. Fevrret (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have no opinion and have better things to worry about than this at this point. I will, however, give a gentle reminder to all editors that statements such as "They are very helpful", "this articles are super helpful" and "Please keep this articles for the love of god" fall under
talk) 21:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Bentvfan54321: - On my part I will admit "helpful" was the wrong word to use and I apologize for that - I don't usually use words like that but somehow did today... Thanks for spotting the error tho :), –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 22:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I also used the word "very helpful" knowing that this can't be a valid argument but I can take it back. It was more a comment on the subject that states something true but I know that "helpful" doesn't mean that something must be kept. Though, I think that I stated my argument about the deletion too in the paragraph...no need to stay in one word :) TeamGale 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the articles may not have adequate source citations in many sections, this does not mean that they do not exist. There are secondary reliable sources out there that typically review or recap episodes of this show on a regular basis; I am sure that enough facets of the data could be sourced to these that a major part of the articles could survive a purge. The rest of the data would need to rely on primary sources—AussieLegend is absolutely right about these being acceptable—and on ordinary mathematical calculations (which are allowed). The picture isn't nearly as grim as painted by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I am truly against this request or requests if you will. Dancing with the Stars has had single pages detailing everything for every season for a very long time. I am not just speaking about the US version of the show. I speak for EVERY DWTS page:
Thai version, US Skating with the Stars and Vietnamese version. All of these pages contain scores and dances unsourced as you call it. All DWTS season pages have scores that were posted by people whom watched the show live and edited the page for it. When someone received a 20 is because the judges gave them that score which were seen by editors whom edit frequently on the DWTS pages. The scores and dances are proven on TV. When it is performed, it is not needed to leave the source as it was shown they danced that specific dance. I watch the show myself and make sure the scores were given as the judges did. Not only that, the DWTS aren't the only ones not including unnecessary references on season pages or episodes for TV shows. As suggested by Gene93k, those are the examples. This practice has been very normal and never depicted issues in the past. Why? Because it was shown on TV. That proves my argument. As time passes by, sources become unavailable and it's been there for a long time. At that point, there is no point on keeping the source. I unfortunately agree with the IP address when they say this is the worst deletion nomination. Callmemirela (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I'm thinking an admin should look at this as a good faith but mistaken nomination

speedily keep and close this thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

KEEPI don't see any good reason why these pages should be deleted. It's very helpful and has lots of information about every episode. There isn't any other website that gives so much detail on every dance in the show.PurpleLights123 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! I didn't create these pages but i use them often. I don't see any reason to delete these pages, because they seem to be used by a lot of people. There are not a lot of places were you can see each episode, each dance, each score and so on. I even looked and I couldn't find any other website that has this much information about this show. It is useful especially for fans of the show so please do not delete these pages. 66.215.220.167 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)— 66.215.220.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I agree with the nom these articles are
WP:LISTCRUFT, et al., there is an established pattern and practice of allowing such articles. I prefer not to upset such established practices just because the practice is not in perfect conformity with a policy.-- danntm ^T _C 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep These are popular and heavily used articles. I admit that I was a frequent contributor to the Season 18 article, updating it during the broadcast of each show, but I was not the only person actively updating as the show went on. It provides a good overview of each season to provide background information for each subsequent season and allow people to compare across seasons. I've certainly looked at older seasons' articles to see how different people did and when they were eliminated. I don't know of anywhere else that documents this show so well. Metheglyn (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've relisted this as to allow someone time to go through and strike out the SPA votes (I can see a handful) and blocked user votes as well. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the two IPs who have only made a single edit each as possible SPAs. Based on the contribution history of the other editors who have commented here, I don't see any others that could be tagged specifically as SPAs and I only see one blocked user. His vote is unlikely to be counted anyway, as it was a pure vote with no rationale. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the strikethru. We don't remove posts of pre-blocked editors. But I agree it was a pretty worthless !vote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with purplelights123. The page should be kept. Dlambe3 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - Dusti isn't wrong but that step isn't necessary for an admin to consider only the legitimate votes that remain. Even with the SPAs, socks and others removed, there are no opinions supportive of deletion. I don't think the community would have objected to Dusti closing it on that basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close - I'm amazed this was relisted. I see so many that get closed with 3 !votes (and sometimes even closed by an admin that states "majority rules") that this seems quite strange and funny by comparison. Even minus any knucklehead !votes. I didn't see any blocked editors and no "known" SPAs. There are a couple first time anon IP's but there is no wiki requirement to automatically label them as "single purpose accounts." They may read a lot but rarely comment. Would I look at them as a lesser !vote...probably. But they don't need to be thrown out just because they are new. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close - Why was this relisted ?, There's more legit votes than anything so thus I'm not seeing much point to this being left open any longer?.... (I'm fully aware I've voted above but believe this ought to be closed ). –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close - I agree with the rest. Even with the possible SPAs removed, there are no votes agreeing with the deletion. It would be better the admins to take a look and close it, saying what is needed to be done. TeamGale 05:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.