Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. On the WP:NOTOR argument, it is certainly correct that it is allowable to compile information from multiple sources to meet GNG. However, nowhere in NOTOR does it advise that a page can be created on a topic that is not explicitly discussed in any of the sources. Therefore NOTOR does not defeat those who argue this is OR for doing just that. SpinningSpark 00:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The US criticism article was just deleted and the arguments there almost certainly hold water for this article. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete' - Original research and the lead section is not really summarised.  The Ninja5 Empire  ( Talk ) 08:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - my initial thought was that this must be better merged with another page, but having looked more closely at the page it seems like there is enough sourced content for a page to be kept. I don't really accept the above that this is "original research" because it is only research in the sense that it has collated information from secondary sources as per the essay WP:NOTOR. On balance I think that it is a reluctant keep as this volume of information would swamp any page it was added to. JMWt (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Jmwt. This article has sufficient sources from well known sustainable outlets (including independant TV regulators) to pass GNG. The majority of it is sourced and not original research. Daily Mail sources may need refining, however. Nordic   Nightfury  07:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this were a short article sourced to a couple of essay-length pieces in reliable sources that discussed how vile Big Brother is, then I would emphatically vote support. But this article seems like an unnecessary (and unsupported) collection of controversy subsections from the individual Big Brother series articles.  A  Train ''talk 14:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per A Train's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to reiterate that the "controversy" article for the US version of the show was deleted. The rationale was that the incidents were in the parent article  for each show, and there are no RS that address controversy as a focal point. Thus that list, (and this one) compiled by our editors is tantamount to original research.  For example, racial and homophobic slurs pepper the list.  Maybe editors here chose to highlight those incidents at the expense of others?  WP:UNDUE becomes an issue, because there is no relevant sourcing to the topic.  I agree that the incidents themselves are verifiable, but the compilation is not.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge). I've always felt this article was pointless, as any controversy should be (and I believe it already is) mentioned in each individual series. I think this was created simply by copying and pasting from other articles. There is some original research here (e.g. "the housemates seemed to form two separate groups") which shouldn't be merged, but the majority seems well sourced. anemone  projectors  12:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to the individual series. Smurrayinchester 15:45, 15 November 2016 (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.