Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad B*tch Club


 * 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 speedy delete per A7 by Orangemike The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad B*tch Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I passed this through Articles for Creation on the grounds it had multiple sources from TV Guide, and assuming that "Bad Girls Club" was a sanitised name for mainstream television. However, it appears that Bad Girls Club (season 7) really exists, and this looks like some sort of parody / attack on it which is itself unsourced. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This should have never gotten through our processes and should have been a G3 candidate on first sight (and would have been if not for falsified sources and the amount of editors who don't want to go anywhere near content involving this series; even then, do some WP:BEFORE and look at the links and content). Yet another godawful article from the Bad Girls Club crufters, only this time involving a $3 YouTube parody that doesn't need an article here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 12:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and a slap on the wrists for any and all editors who let it get through Articles For Creation (seriously, what the hell?) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I made a mistake - chill! -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   14:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as unnotable web content. The sources are, as pointed out, falsified, and the web series has no claim of notability.  17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What CSD criteria would you delete it under? It's got enough content to not qualify for A7, the YouTube channel probably exists (though it's not notable) so you can't do G3, not particularly vicious enough for a G10 or really non-neutral advertising to get a G11. Your best best is for a snow delete, I reckon. Bear in mind there's a newbie writing an article behind this, so don't bite them more than necessary until you're absolutely convinced what they're doing is motivated malice. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   18:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how long the article is to qualify for deletion under A7, just that it is web content that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". The article does not do so, thus it would be eligible for A7.Rorshacma (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that A7 is for articles like "Flopsy is my pet rabbit. I feed him twice a day and clean his hutch". I'd probably only call A7 on long articles if they were borderline incomprehensible gibberish. The article does assert importance - it's a specific web TV show (or at least the claim is). Still - I forsee snowballs ahead, so this point is probably moot. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   20:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's your understanding of A7, then you need to stay away from Articles for Creation, voluntarily or otherwise. A7 is nothing to do with article length.  You also need to make sure to actually check sources.  Unsourced inflammatory content about real people is a significant legal problem for the Foundation, and you're enabling it.  That's absolutely not acceptable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you even said that. Please assume good faith and go and have a look through the entire history of my contributions to see just how many AfC articles I have declined due to sourcing problems, or how many responses I have given on the help desk about lack of notability and sourcing. WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk is one example today, and that's one with sources! This mistake happened because I saw the sources, I checked them, but made an erroneous assumption that this article and an unrelated one were the same thing. You seem to have forgotten I created this AfD - so don't assume I want this article kept. Also, "Unsourced inflammatory content about real people" is G10 or a BLP PROD, NOT an A7. Get your CSDs right. I'm going to say this in bold so it sinks in : Speedy deletes are hostile to newbies and scare them away. Don't do them unless you are utterly convinced it's a sure fire case. WP:WER has more. (As, in fact, does WP:BRICKS). -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   21:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * AGF does not mean ignoring clear examples of bad judgement, but okay, I'll play along and take a look at your contributions per your request. Where should I start?  The part on your user page where you link to examples of your favourite vandalism?  Or how about the delicious tidbit a week ago where you tell a new user to violate copyright by uploading newspaper scans and then whine when Roger (quite rightly) tells you not to do that?  Dear me, it's such a scrumptuous buffet I scarecely know where to start!  Regarding your second point, I never said A7 and A10 are the same ("You also need..."), and it's probably best not to call attention to that, as you're coming dangerously close to admitting that you knowingly created an attack article as opposed to a non-notable one, which is, uh, pretty bad.  I'm going to say this in bold so it sinks in: Unsourced attacks on living people give WMF lawyers ulcers.  Don't do them again, ever, under any circumstances.  WP:BLP has more. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Dennis on this one. You are being particularly uncivil and rude. When you haul me up for a topic ban on WP:ANI, then I'll listen to people telling me what I can and can't do. Until then, providing I'm civil, follow policy as close as I can remember, and do stuff in good faith, I'll edit what I want where I want, thanks. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody's asking or expecting you to have complete ultimate knowledge of every one of Wikipedia's one jillion policy pages, but it's a good idea to really watch the major important ones (paricularly the CSD's, WP:BLP and copyvios), especially when advising newbies and/or dealing with potentially legally sensitive areas. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If I didn't know those policies, I wouldn't have thought to AfD it in the first place! In fact, doing it this way round is better, because a simple AfC decline will just sit there left to rot with about 65,000 others unless somebody actually spots it. Here, it will get wiped. Now just drop it. (Regarding copyright policies, I'm somewhat surprised you overlooked the advice I gave this afternoon here of "You must make sure your picture respects copyrights", let alone the ballache of getting the correct clearance from several different organisations on this site I wrote - so to claim I don't understand copyright issues is somewhat comical). -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   22:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe everyone needs to drop it, and just let the process work. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per GNG. And I'm not going to complain about a mistake, since we all make them. And I'm not going to complain about AfC since I haven't volunteered to help out in this understaffed area.  And I'm certainly not going to question anyone's competence or faith because not only is that incivil, it is disingenuous since we have all made mistakes of various and sorted types, big and small, but most people try to hide theirs.  Seriously, get off the soapbox, Andrew, it isn't helping anyone or anything. He made a minor mistake and clearly knows and admits it, bludgeoning the point isn't helpful but it is rude.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:A7- There is absolutely no reason provided by the article that its subject is significant at all, and the article seems to be just a promotion of a web video series. Ducknish (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow delete Web content of no clear notability, a quick look on youtube shows that the first episode has had 4,100 views since the 18th. While things like page views/googlehits etc. aren't usable to show notability or lack of, it does indicate that this youtube series has a very minor following for something in its third series. Exactly why Bad Girls Club's material was copied into this article in the first place I don't know, but this needs to go. Someoneanother 00:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, WP:BITE the author to death and finally tighten AfC to quick-fail submissions not meeting at least basic standards. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP: WEB with no reliable sources at all. Why was this submission accepted in the first place? Electric Catfish (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Get rid of it now! Looks like the real article already exists and parody is not notable. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2012 (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.