Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Je suis une célébrité, sortez-moi de là ! (series 1)


 * 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Je suis une célébrité, sortez-moi de là ! (series 1)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article contains only Original Research that is mostly fan-based, and holds no citations whatsoever. It fails to address things such as an episode list and ratings, and thus holds no notability whatsoever. The article should be deleted if no solution can be presented to correct the issues it raises. GUtt01 (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. No evidence that it is "only original research" or "fan-based", the article seems perfectly standard for these type of TV shows, and the topic is obviously notable (see e.g. this article. I'm usually not a fan of the "AfD is not for cleanup" mantra, as what some people describe as cleanup are often very fundamental problems, but in this case the article, which could use improvements of course, is already perfectly acceptable as is. Add one or two sources, easily found, tag whatever you truly believe to ve dubious, and remove all wrong information (if any), but don't delete a neutral, factual article about a notable topic. Fram (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's the problem here. The article has serious issues, and if you haven't seen the discussion regarding I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1), you can't really state Keep for an article unless you can see the underlining argument behind this one's AfD. Also note, that I stated the article should be deleted only if "no solution can be presented to correct the issues" being raised. GUtt01 (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No one on that discussion wants deletion though, the opinions are split between keep or redirect. Your nomination statement here should have indicated at least that the necessary information is already in the main article, but instead you went for "only original research" and "mostly fan-based", which are not convincing reasons to get rid of this (and the many others you also nominated). This is the kind of topic which gets articles in "Le Nouvel Observateur" (see above), but also Le Figaro or Le Parisien. Not solely reporting the outcome, also reviewing other episodes with ratings. So basically all you need to show that this season is a notable topic and with plenty of potential to make this decent article a much better one. Fram (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But there is only one season of this French edition of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! covered out of two. That raises the question of needing to have separate articles for this programme on only a handful of seasons, of which only one got coverage and the other was never given that. To not understand the arguments raised is a serious concern - those who raise redirect have voiced arguments about how these types of programmes are handled. GUtt01 (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:WAX argument. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Failure to do WP:BEFORE, particularly the section on alternatives to deletion and performing your own search for references prior to taking the article to AFD. Specifically, the 2006 season of this program was a notable flop (see, e.g., 1 2 3) and this can be demonstrated in reliable sources. Per WP:BEFORE it is for the nominator to assure themselves that there is no alternative for deletion before they bring the article to AFD. The second season (i.e., this year's) is with a different format and arguably a different topic (in many cases a 13-year-long-gap would lead people to think that they are actually different programs). FOARP (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect to main article as after 9 years of 0 sources, it clearly fails WP:V. Seeing as how there is almost no prose at all and it is only 2 tables, there is no reason why this can't be merged into the main article if deemed important (albeit, again, unsourced for 9 years). --Gonnym (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:NEXIST - supporting references exist as is demonstrated above. WP:NOWORK is not a good WP:DELREASON. PS - refs have also been added to the article. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2019 (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.