Talk:David Tench Tonight/Archive 1

What is this, millions of Australians are bombarded with talk of this David Tench fellow, but not only is it not listed on wikipedia, it is actually locked from being listed? Ah well, maybe I should move to America so the worlds encyclopedia can relate to me. Hehe, like the American pages on bit part characters in the Simpsons or pages devoted to continuity errors in the American Star Trek. ^_^ JayKeaton 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No longer going to delet it
Now that Wikipedia is aware that "David Tench Tonight" is legit & is not an advertising gimmick, yet a real article about the show, its likely not delete the article... right?


 * The matter needs to be taken to a Deletion review. Ans e ll  11:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol, it's funny, the page of bit part characters from the simpsons was just removed a few days ago. Looks like a bit of sense has trickled into UrbanPedia ^_^ JayKeaton 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the locked review, can't be bothered really. You can't fight city hall, as they say JayKeaton 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

newly created
there is dispute about anything I have writen then I can put the sources in.


 * As for the comment on wikipedia, I thought it was notable, especially as anyone reading it already knows about wikipedia. It was "exceptional" in my eyes that someone in the wikipedia foundation (I guess that means anyone that can edit) deleted the page and then locked it, I have never seen that yet on wikipedia. It came accross as an act to punish channel ten rather than edit the page to abide by wikipedias guidelines, but that would just be guesswork so of course I did not put that specifically in. But wikipedias reactions was a result of the old pages actions, why those actions and reactions were chosen I guess cannot be said and arn't important why, just that it happened


 * Oh yeah, I am clearly not a professional at writing and gramma and stuff, but I did my best. Please don't bite my head off ^_^ JayKeaton 21:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

notable
12,500 google results for the exact phrase "David Tench", tench being a fictional surname almost all of them are for this David Tench (and I did check random pages of results, 12,500 is obviously too many to check them all). I would like to get rid of Goldom's little note on the page as soon as possible, does anyone know how I can shake him? JayKeaton 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's notable but I want to address the issue of there being "12,500 google results". That little number Google shows is notoriously inaccurate. For example, if we do a search right now for "David Tench" I get 26,400 results. But if I click to view page 10 of those results (I have 50 results per page) it actually concks out at page 7 showing "Reults 301 - 337" and the message "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 337 already displayed". If I repeat the search with the "omitted results included" it brings up - in some cases - hundreds of results which all point to the same site. If you look at those results, you'll see that "David Tench" appears as an item in a menu and that menu is then shown on many pages for the one site, yet all those "results" point to the same page. 337 out of 26,400 means only 1% could really be considered valid results. I just wanted to say this because Google "results returned" numbers pop up frequently as some kind of validation method, when typically it's wildly inaccurate. Yay unto the Chicken 04:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ten logo
Added the Ten logo as the picture for the fictional character that the page is about was removed and it needs a picture there at least. Although it makes it look like an advertisement now, but meh, it'll do for now JayKeaton 22:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Foundation
"In a exceptional move with the wikipedia foundation stepping in and deleting then locking the David Tench page on the internet site wikipedia after several wikipedia rules regarding promotions and misrepresentation of actual facts written about the show were not followed on the original page."


 * i've moved this paragraph here because, from what I can see, it is absurd. The foundation didn't step in and do anything. The article was deleted by an administrator following an AfD. It was quite routine and there was absolutely nothing exceptional about it. Further, the article cited really doesn't support the claims made. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think any claims were made, but I did say that anything that didn't fit on there should be edited and you did that, so kudos to you ^_^ JayKeaton 23:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In that sentence, at least four incorrect claims were made:
 * The Foundation "stepped in" to delete the page
 * The foundation locked the page,
 * This was "exceptional",
 * Facts were "misrepresented".


 * The actual truth:


 * The Foundation did not step into this issue, nor did they delete the page. The page was deleted by User:Blnguyen at the request of the community after consenus was reached at the AfD.
 * The Foundation did not lock the page. The page was temporarily locked (for only two days) by User:Xoloz because of "persistent reposting" of the article in violation of the consensus achieved at the AfD.
 * As I've already told you, there was nothing exceptional about the deletion of this page. It was completely unexceptional, mundane and routine. Many, many articles are deleted every day and many pages get proptected.
 * I cannot understand which facts were allegedly "misrepresented" or by whom.


 * Also, your claim above that deletion and page protection was done, in your opinion, "to punish channel ten" is patently false. The deletion was done at the request of the community and the protection was done because some people would not accept that decision or follow policy.


 * I'm sorry if you feel your head is being "bitten off," that is not my intention, but this really needs to stop. As you were told before recreating this article, if you disagree with the deletion, you should take it to WP:DRV, not just recreate it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was "told" that o.O lol JayKeaton 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that means, but if you're trying to suggest that Ansell rudely told you to take it to DRV, you are mistaken. He simply gave you fact-based advice. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Facts were "misrepresented", I did rather mean that the original page the facts about the David Tench show were misrepresented, as in the page was written by someone that knew the facts about the show, but instead worded it in cheesy mystery. I could be wrong though, I haven't seen the original page, but I imagine it was pretty bad to be flat out deleted and locked. And by wikipedia foundation locking it, I did mean the admins working for wikipedia, because they are wikipedia, actually we all are wikipedia. JayKeaton 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't like that at all. I saw the page myself and voted on the original AfD. It basically just said that it was a new show to air on Channel Ten and about Andrew Denton's involvement. From what I recall, it was just a basic TV show stub. There also was no evidence presented to suggest the person who started it was from Channel 10. Just as there is no evidence that you are from Channel 10. The issue with the article wasn't with the information in the aricle, it was (as it still is for a lot of people) an unaired show is not notable. You shouldn't write things into an article as fact if you don't have the facts.
 * Regarding your comments about the Foundation, I think you are confused about some of the Wiki terminology. When people talk about the "Foundation," they're talking about the Wikimedia Foundation which is the parent body of Wikipedia. And when they say something like what you did in this article about the foundation "stepping in" to delete and protect a page, it generally means that a page has been put under WP:OFFICE protection. That usually only happens when there is legal concerns about an article and often when the subject of the article has rung the foundation to complain about defamation. OFFICE protection generally is considered an "exceptional move" and it does occur when "the Foundation steps in". But regular page deletion and protection from creation after repeated recreation in violation of an AfD is not exceptional and the administrators performing it are not representing the Foundation. They're actually representing the community and following through on the community's instructions as indicated by consensus reached on AfD.
 * I hope that helps explain some of my comments about the paragraph I removed from the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I have increasingly hinted at, if it was millions of Americans that saw the ad and were talking about the show it "might" be a different case. And for a stock standard page about an upcoming highly hyped show, all I can do is scratch my head at why it would be deleted and locked. Maybe Wikipedia shouldn't be the Earth\worlds enyclopedia, but it should in fact be called America's encyclopedia ^_^ JayKeaton 18:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nearly all the people who "voted" delete are Australians, so I think your American-centric theory is slightly flawed. As for your continuing confusion about the page deletion and protection, all I can do is sigh and go to bed. I've explained to you repeatedly what that was about, that it was completely standard action for circumstances, but for some reason you refuse to accept the truth and prefer to theorise about conspiracy theories, American-centricity and what not. +shrugs+ I give up. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, the show starts in a matter of days and real life world wide celebrities have been confirmed for the program, so I guess all that can be said is... you lose? JayKeaton 11:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleting a page relating to a TV show even before it starts is preposterous. Gtoomey 11:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose deletion, nor did I AfD the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The page was voted to be deleted before the show had a premiere date. We now know who David Tench is. We know when his show is airing. We know the format of the show. I do not understand why we can not create ap age about David Tench and his show. Deleting the page again would be crazy in my mind. Fair enough if we still knew nothing about who Tench was, but we now know enough to create an interesting page. Just leave it please. SmilyAndrew 13:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk from this page before move
Hey, I'm not sure why this article was deleted but "David Tench Tonight" starts Thursday on Channel 10 in Australia. I Wikipedia article should probably be created?

Why is it at David Tench
This page is at David Tench. David Tench only should be there. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 12:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because this page was deleted after an AfD, then recreated numerous time, speedied under G4, then eventually protected against recreation. Then, to get around the page protection, they moved onto the David Tench page, which has also been speedied under G4 several times now. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete nom tag thing
So when can we take that off? I mean it is clear that the show can stand on its own, maybe move this page to David_Tench_Tonight and redirect it until more info on David Tench himself comes in, but yeah, the page on the show and him are not being deleted, so can I just take it off? And consensus on the vote page has also turned around, there are less votes saying "delete" JayKeaton 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please wait until an administrator decides the final consensus and closes the AfD debate. If the page is kept, the admin will remove the template. --Spring Rubber 03:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Page has been kept now. I think it should be moved, and the focus put on the show (won't take much changing). Looks like it'll take an admin to move, since the target exists as a locked page. I happen to have become one just recently, so I'll do it if no one objects. Consensus toward the end sounded like it agreed on this, but I'm asking here just in case anyone has a problem with that. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objections, but if the other page is unprotected, I think this page should be deleted and protected. The comment above, "redirect it until more info on David Tench himself comes in," makes me cringe. One article is more than enough for the immediate future. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, locking it for now as just a redirect to avoid recreation, as kept happening in the past. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 09:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "One article is more than enough"?? Last week you were trying to delete it. Sarah Ewart (Please reply to ALL my comments about you.) Gtoomey 11:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So what if I supported deletion???? So did a lot of other people. That doesn't mean that I proposed deletion or nominated it for AfD. Get your facts straight and stop making personal attacks. Even though I supported deletion, and even before it looked like it might survive the AfD, I was helping to write the article, looking for references, copyediting etc. Check the history. You keep slagging off at me, but what have you done to help??? Yeah, that's what I thought: Nothing. Your contributions list shows you've made 6 VERY minor article edits since New Year's Day. The rest of the time all you've done is complain, criticise and make nasty personal attacks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also supported deletion the first time, however, the appropriate use of reliable sources this time made me support the article. There is definitely not enough interest (presently generated commercial hype out of the way) to keep two good articles. My solution, just deal with things here and make this article good. Ans e ll 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you cringe rather easy then JayKeaton 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't. But I do cringe at the misinformation you have been (knowingly) pushing and your strange views of Wikipedia. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Say what you mean honey ;) JayKeaton 00:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've moved it. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 14:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan Site
Just to let you all know, the "fan site" is actually a viral marketing technique used by the producers.

1. The site was up before it was even announced who or what Tench is. 2. Has publicity materials not found elsewhere.


 * Is it? It uses publicity material found on the press release from Ten, and captures from the tv commercial. Drett 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Its an amateutish attempt with 3 screen captures, including one with a horizontal line through it. Surely nobody is so stupid that thay can't see that. Gtoomey 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The big drawcard
Ten will get their drawcard right here. After the failure of Yasmin's Getting Married, Tench is the much needed shot in the arm. Before you know it, he'll have the (second) best carpark at the network (the boss gets the best park of course) and rolling in green from the show. Ah, the sweet smell of success....
 * I'm hoping the same. Channel 10 suffered with The Wedge, which used a similar viral marketing campaign, but this idea is creative and cool.  Almost like the Gorillaz of talk-shows. Taylor 09:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Office
This page mentions that talk radio has been discussing Ten's failures and mentions the cancelling of The Office US version. It might have been put on hiatus or whatever but for at least the last few months it has been on Sunday nights, so I have removed this. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 11:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Kyle and Jackie O
Apparently callers to Kyle and Jackie O have expressed a disinterest in this. Are callers to that show a reliable source? See: Drett 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Airs tonight
In less than 10 hours in fact (PS, Americans, that is Australian time which is much ahead of yours ;) ) JayKeaton 00:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)