Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Big Brother (U.S. TV series)


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Big Brother (U.S. TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is original research. That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article isn't original research it has sources it just needs to be written in the WP:MOS the events noted here are notable and pertain to the topic.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  05:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's OR in that the vast majority of the sources report that "X happened", yet this article says X Is controversial when the source says nothing like that. Additionally this is a BLP landmine field. It's way out of line in some of the accusations and implications.That man from Nantucket (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Seems like it is based on WP:Original research. Mostly it is incidents, yes involving WP:Living persons, that someone decided were critical. Of course, both outstanding incidents and problems as well as comprehensive criticisms should have an expanded section in the main article.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you all are discussing this article then Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) needs to be added to this discussion because it is the same thing.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  22:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that, but you are correct. Why don't we let this play out first? No sense in having two discussions over the same subject.  I would say the same logic applies to all "criticism of X" articles, unless sources exist that devoted to the critiscm of X.  Even then, the critiscm belongs in X.That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Every section is pretty much already discussed in separate articles pertaining to specified seasons without any additional information or reliable sources.--OfficerAPC (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with OfficerAPC, and Thoughtmonkey about this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 21 October 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.