Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. (X! · talk)  · @121  ·  01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)

List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete. All of the article's important infomation can already be found at

WP:LISTCRUFT. DJ 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

But this is a different case. The
Big Brother 2009 (UK) article has a comprehensive, sourced and detailed section. The other articles you mention do not. DJ 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a note for new entrants, not a debating point. If you had that reason in mind, you should have mentioned it in the rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And
other crap exists, once the other nine main articles have been revised those articles will also be nominated for deletion. And there is no need for a nominator to give all the reasons for deletion in the rationale, the reason can be expanded, in fact that is the point, to discuss the reason for keeping and deleting the article in question. So far, Mick, you have not given a compelling reason to keep this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
What did you not understand about this is a note not a debating point?. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What gives you the right to tell people what they can and can't talk or debate about? Read up on
WP:CIVIL before continuing the debate, please. DJ 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I have every right to point out the obvious, this was a note about related articles, it was not a voting ratinale, and it does not warrant threaded discussion. This is standard practice, that occurs every single day in Afd's. Civil has got nothing to do with this issue at all. MickMacNee (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    WP:ACRONYM as if it is a replacement for an argument. MickMacNee (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What infomation does this article provide that the section in
Big Brother 2009 (UK) does not? DJ 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I honeslty don't know, because I am never going to waste the hour it would take to try and read that mess in the main article to be able to compare it to the list, to verify your claim. And as we don't have a
paper shortage, even if they are exact duplicates, it wouldn't honeslty matter, because being in different formats is good enough reason to keep the list. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
So your answer is that you don't have an answer. I think that says it all. DJ 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you provide a valid
valid reason for deletion, I might try harder (and no, a list is not a content fork of prose). As it is, it should be pretty clear to anybody that an Afd is not the right mechanisim for justifying using prose over lists, irrespective of which has more information. Your wall of text prose only seems to list age/sex/job/location anyway (you are no doubt under the mistaken impression that all other detail is TRIVIA), but just in an unreadable, and arguably totally banal way, so I could just as easily argue that we can convert that section to a table. I would not need to Afd this list before doing that. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
So you want to !keep this article but you cannot be bothered to read the shorter version that has been put into the main article, which is the main reason for deleting this article? So why bother to say anything, Mick? This is not a vote, but a discussion. The main crux of that discussion is that this article is nothing more than a copy of information already in the main article, which you call a "wall of text", although it is just six short paragraphs (limited to ASL, mainly). The activites of the house are contained in the summary, the details of the housemates are in the housemate section, so what exactly do you feel is missing from the main article which is in this article? Benazir's hair colour? Cairon's living arrangements? Marcus's delusion that he thinks he is Wolverine? There is nothing more than trivia in this article. The winner will get their own article, the others will fade into obscurity. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are really hard work. Right - this list should not be deleted because there is no reason in policy that justifies deleting a valid stand-alone List article just because someone thinks the information is adequately dealt with elsewhere, whether that is a smaller summary or not. Does that satisy you, even though my view was already abundantly clear in my previous replies and backed up in policy and not essays that the people mentioning them barely understand. It is not LISTCRUFT, and it is not TRIVIA (even if some of it is, again, that is not a valid reason for deletion), and a List format is more than appropriate for this kind of information, especially over a wall of unreadable text which we at least agree is merely a list of ASL in prose form. It is frankly unimportant that you won't personally be monitoring the list for appropriate content or BLP violations, those are not valid reasons for deletion either. Your idea that this is a list of small aricles implying independant notability for each contestant is just nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "a wall of unreadable text". It is a few paragraphs of text, much like millions of articles on Wikipedia. If you have trouble reading five paragraphs and need to have them in a separate article as 22 paragraphs (most of which will barely contain more information than age, sex, occupation, day in eviction %) then the problem is with you not the "wall of unreadable text". And BLP concerns are serious. The main concern is not, however, the trivial elements (although Halfwit, Dogface and Noirin contain massive unsourced chunks of trivia) are not the concern, the BLP violations are not the concern and the list-y elements are not the concern. This is a
content fork which repeats all the information in the article and adds nothing but trivia. If all the trivia was removed this article would be nothing more than the info already in the main article. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, so we've discounted everything that isn't a reason why we delete things. Great. So, quite obviously 22 paragraphs versus 5 paragraphs is not a content fork, by any stretch of the imagination. But you think this is just down to trivia. But if your definition of trivia is 'anything else that is not age/sex/job/location', then for the content of articles about reality TV shows and contestants, I don't accept your definition at all, not even in the slightest. This is information about reality TV contestants, which by definition, will include much more information than your simple telephone directory stuffed into prose. The content meets all the requirements for stand-alone list articles, IDON'TTHINKTHATSWORTHMENTIONING and NOBODYWANTSTOKNOWTHIS is not a reason to get rid of it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But
trivia is. Also what is in this article and not trivial which could only be in this article? Look at the Dogface or Halfwit sections, outside of tasks and basic bios there is nothing worth keeping, just trivia (Halfwit the most nominated, Dogface kissed Kris!, Marucs had an argument!!). You want to keep this, why? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Read the nomination. All that is achieved here -
Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates. DJ 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
All of the "official warnings, arguments, nominations, notable things the housemates have done in the house" are included in the section
notable then they will get their own articles. Are IPs allowed to nominate at AFD? DJ 08:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
" Are IPs allowed to nominate at AFD?" if you mean vote then yes, but this IP has only two edits. Also "If this page gets deleted, then the pages for the housemates of all the previous series should be AFDed" is a valid comment, and once the information has been re-integrated back to the relevant articles then I would expect an AfD for each, but the focus of this AfD is this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more than being just a list it is an unnecessary content fork. I doubt Benazir, Sree or Cairon will ever do anything notable, and if they do then a separate article for individual housemates (like the winner gets) would be more appropriate. Kenneth spent 6 days in the house, other than his entrance and exit he did nothing of note. This is simply a magnet for trivia and BLP violations, and all the information can be covered in the main article. As for previous years, once the information is trimmed and incorporated back in to the main articles then they can be deleted as well. The !Keep votes seem to be leaning heavily on
    notability. We used to have separate Summary pages but they were deleted and the information put back, the same principal applies here. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The reason that the information is duplicated in
    Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates is because that section started off as a direct copy of this article with a bit of tweaking to make it into prose. Since then I have agonised over it and rewritten it a couple of times but I'm not proud of it and I'm not happy with it. Furthermore, no-one else has succeeded in improving it. Surely a fundamental requirement of a section of prose is that it be readable. The problem is that it just doesn't work as prose without adding other content that would almost certainly be considered trivia, and so it would be much better off as a list in a separate article. MegaPedant (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I've read that over various times, and still can't see why you want to keep this article. All of those issues there appear to be editorial - you are stating that we should keep one article because a section on another is unreadable and this is not a valid excuse for a Keep vote on AFD. DJ 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the need to add your own comments to every Keep vote? Have you not had sufficient opportunity to make your views known in your proposal? Can you not accept that some people hold a different viewpoint from your own and that your comments are not going to change their minds? It's possible that some people might find them just a little bit annoying. MegaPedant (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simply a vote, it's a discussion, if you want a reason to keep this page then it is appropriate for editors to ask why. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way the two of you are going round trying to get everyone voting Keep to change their mind... well, frankly, it doesn't look good. Let me have another go at explaining my point of view: faced with a choice, I would rather keep this article than the Housemates section of Big Brother 2009 (UK). MegaPedant (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's the opposite. It shows that the delete argument is so strong that we can disprove everything you say. Remember- this is a debate, not a vote. And this argument you've proposed is also full of holes. It's not about your personal prefference, it's about keeping to Wikipedia's rules and guidlines, which say that we should keep infomation together and not create seperate articles willy nilly for the sake of it. You haven't been on Wikipedia for long, I suggest you read some policies and guidlines. In this case, I suggest
WP:SPLIT and Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article. DJ 07:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Except that it is, in previous years the information has been removed from the main article, this year it has been trimmed down and incorporated. The last four year's don't have this information in the respective main articles, this one does. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And besides, that argument is yet another example of
WP:ILIKEIT. DJ 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That argument fails
WP:EFFORT. DJ 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh DJ, how did I guess that you would attack me for stating my opinion? Also, I don't care if it fails
(talk) 18:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry about my previous comment. It comes across as quite rude, so I'd like to apologize. I see what you mean about
(talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I get the impression that the nominator doesn't like lists like this, and would rather reply this high quality, well sourced list, with a load of crap in the article.
talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, but the "crap" (as you called it) in the main article has co-existed alongside the list well up until this point. In fact, I don't understand why we cannot have both. The main article, with the simple details on the housemates and the list with more detail. Feel free to criticize this, it's just an idea.
(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Quite a sensible one - I can see where you are coming from. You should suggest it at the discussion on the main article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced, notable. Dodgy nom.
    talk)(Jenuk1985) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sourcing and notability is not the problem. If you'd have read my "dodgy nom", you would have realised that the page has been nominated for deletion as it is a re-creation of content elsewhere on the encyclopedia. DJ 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that since all the objection is to the information being in two places, I have removed it from the main article, which now looks like all the others in respect of how it handles housemates. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do that without concensus. Therfore, I've reverted that edit. DJ 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:Fancruft Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate spin-out to keep main articles concise and readable and easily editable, as with other years of the show. Sure, both articles currently need some TLC, but the basic structure is a good one. Jheald (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment its worth noting that
    talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Without refs or the nomination table the article is barely about 30k. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a precedent set with 4 out of 9 of the previous BBUK series, but not the first 4. ANd I don't deny they meet
WP:V but without the series they fail the GNG. And there are very few secondary sources that talk about the housemates other than to say they entered and were evicted (or walked). Darrenhusted (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
What is achieved by keeping it? Darrenhusted (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing to be achieved by deleting it. By keeping it, we will be keeping a tidy, well-written and well-sourced list.
(talk) 11:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
How is it notable? Darrenhusted (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listing all twenty-one contestants on the
    Big Brother 2009 (UK) article would lower the quality of that article because it would make it far too long and make it look very untidy - For this reson I am opposed to a merge to that particular article, and since there is no other article this one could be merged with I am completely opposed to a merge. This article follows a trend set by the most recent five series of the UK version, so if this article should be deleted, then in theory so should all of their "List of Big Brother housemates" pages. The information on this page is well sourced, and the page is well written. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The links to the infobox on the main page will not work if this page is deleted MSalmon (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a poor rationale for keeping an article. Do you have other reasons? lifebaka++ 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been no reason given that the content of this article should be deleted.
    WP:LISTCRUFT applies, and the list does not appear to match any of the 11 common uses listed at that essay. So, the best the nominator can reasonably hope for is a merge, which would make the article longer than would be liked. So, the article should be kept. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep past precedent on other years has established that we keep these lists. Otherwise, they become too unwieldy for the article. Majorly talk 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an appropriate break-out list from the main article which isn't immense but is still quite large. Additionally both article seems to be full of sources. What we have here is a conflict of style compounded by recentism. This is quite common on reality show articles. There is no reason to delete this but one could quibble on merging which also wouldn't seem to help in this case. I suggest waiting a few months after the show has come and gone and see where things are - some of these folks will have scandals or even get their own articles. Hindsight will help clean-up the main and extra details can rightly be sent to this list and individual articles which would be summarized here.
    -- Banjeboi 11:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - there are 21 housemates at about 1KB each. Having a seperate list is the only sensible course of action.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise? - Could a "Big Brother UK Housemates" prose article or "List of Big Brother UK Housemates" list article be created that includes information for all ten series' worth of housemates onto one page? Not sure if that article would exceed page size recommendations, but it's a thought. If one merge will not work due to size issues, then I would lean toward Keep because I cannot watch the show from the U.S. but I do come to the houseguest article occasionally to see what happens to particular houseguests. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 5 UK housemate lists, each containing 22-23 housemates. Including references and such, one combined list would probably be too long and would be very unreadable.
(talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Big_Brother_2009_housemates_(UK)&oldid=1140256219"