Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK)


 * 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 delete. Relevant details are already in parent article. If there is well-sourced material in this article that needs to be merged into the parent article, let me know and I can provide a copy of the deleted article to harvest the material. MastCell Talk 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is currently a fork of Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) with a few minor formatting changes and some content removed. Under the guideline at Content forking, this should be be deleted. Another option that was considered for this page is to use it to contain details about the racism controversy associated with the series by splitting off the relevant sections from the main article. However, by looking at the methods at WP:SIZE, the size of the article alone does not justify this, so I recommend that this page is deleted. Tra (Talk) 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete I think "Fork" is misleading here. The vast majority of information in this article is a straight up cut-and-paste from Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) that have nothing to do with the specific subject of the racism controversy (e.g. most of the introduction, a paragraph on each contestant, charts of evictions, etc).  In fact the source article already has an extremely large section on Accusations of racism and bullying.  What exactly is new in this separate article?  I suspect one or two editors who had a paragraph stripped from the main article who decided they want their own competing article, a suspicion I think is backed up since there isn't a link to the original article anywhere in the introduction of the racism one.  Who would write an article on a sub-subject and not link the broader context? -Markeer 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete per Markeer &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Merge and delete isn't possible, per the GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So merge and redirect instead. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the GFDL section on Secondary sections applies here as the author of this offshoot is anonymous (see article history, all major contributions were by IP addresses). However, I'm not a lawyer.  If secondary sections applies, delete in toto and redirect, but userfy the article to the article creator's sandbox (in this case an IP address sandbox).  Theoretically that author could incorporate what he or she believes important back into the original article.  Either way, this article shouldn't exist separately from the original. -Markeer 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) because the article being nominated is currently a fork. Wikipedia does not need duplicate (or even near-duplicate) articles.  Yes, the SIZE of the original article doesn't justify splitting this content to a whole separate article. ( [ →] vish  win60  - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Content forks should be merged, not deleted.  --SmokeyJoe 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Content forking suggests that they should be nominated for deletion. Should that guideline be changed or is this a special case? Tra (Talk) 01:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline says that they may be nominated for deletion. Elsewhere it says that accidental forks should be merged.  I think the guideline should be rewritten to clarify that by default all forks should be merged, and that deletions should be special cases.  Cases like this shouldn’t be wasting time at AfD, they should be subject a straightforward editorial decisions to merge the forked articles.  Whether this one should be merged depends on the quality of the stand alone article, and its sources (see WP:N), but regardless of that decision I don’t think deletion should be used here.  --SmokeyJoe 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds better. I've changed the guideline to that effect. Tra (Talk) 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...And was reverted. Perhaps more discussion over this issue is needed? Tra (Talk) 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete The problem with big brother articles is they are visited a huge amount through the programs duration and shortly after, but hardly ever when its over. We're then left with hundreds of small, effectively stub sized articles which are really quite redundant. Keeping Big Brother (and similar TV show) pages to a minimum number of larger than normally accepted sized articles is preferable to keeping many small articles. This reduces AfD's 2 years down the road when no one remembers (or wants to know on wikipedia) who Emily Parr is. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per WikipedianProlific. I think merge and delete violates the GFDL. One page per Big Brother series is quite enough, thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep- I'll try to remove the POVish Jade bashing and pith.--86.29.254.249 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC) P.S.- tagging- how come it's condemed for having both slang/buzwords and erudite/technical words by the same tagger.

Comment- Cutting and merging out some of the bezaar and unsourced entries. --86.25.49.3 03:58, 20 July 2007 (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.