| Revision as of 15:43, 27 June 2006 edit23skidoo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users38,419 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:56, 27 June 2006 edit undoNscheffey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,278 edits possible bad faith nominationNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| :'''and therefore serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable.''' ] 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | :'''and therefore serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable.''' ] 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. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 15:28, 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. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 15:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Upon review I think this AfD nomination might be '''bad faith'''. ] shows that ] 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? --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 15:56, 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 ] 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. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 15:32, 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 ] 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. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per precedent, though I would support a merging of the different seasons into one big article, too. ] 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per precedent, though I would support a merging of the different seasons into one big article, too. ] 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:56, 27 June 2006
Big Brother Australia series 6
Reason the page should be deleted:
This article is noncompliant to Misplaced Pages 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 - Misplaced Pages 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 15:28, 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 15:56, 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. --JDemail 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)