Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 1 housemates (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   no consensus. The discussion concerning possible merge options may certainly continue on the appropriate talkpages. J04n(talk page) 22:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Big Brother 1 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 2 housemates (UK) List of Big Brother 3 housemates (UK) List of Big Brother 4 housemates (UK) List of Big Brother 5 housemates (UK) List of Big Brother 6 housemates (UK) List of Big Brother 7 housemates (UK) List of Big Brother 8 housemates (UK) List of Big Brother 9 housemates (UK) List of Big Brother 11 housemates (UK) List of Big Brother 12 housemates (UK) List of Big Brother 13 housemates (UK)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per precedent @ Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK), all other lists are hereby nominated with the same rationale applying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all per prior AfD, this FANCRUFT/LISTCRUFT type garbage has no place here. Quite a few BLP violations turn up in those articles as well. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being on one reality show doesn't make any of these people uniquely notable. Ducknish (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete All per precedent as BLP-related fancruft. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge all, per argument of Leaky Cauldron below. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge There is a nucleus of relevant, encyclopaedic and non-infringing material which will benefit from inclusion within the equivalent main article before deletion. The main articles have not been tagged and the delete rationale gives the misleading impression that these articles stand alone. They do not and the associated main articles should be tagged to ensure as fair a sighting of this mass delete to those with only the main article on their watchlist. Leaky  Caldron  16:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge All in to one Davey 2010   Talk  16:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, do you have any idea how ridiculously big that list would be? Let alone the fact it would be a massive list of non-notable/BLP1E people. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge all but into their relevant article rather than one big list article, which would be too long. Cut down a lot of the fancruft and merge, for example, List of Big Brother 1 housemates (UK) into Big Brother 1 (UK). Keresaspa (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge appropriately. No policy-based reason for deletion of this (regrettably) notable content has been articulated, but an editorial decision to reformat or consolidate the presentation is certainly reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge each to its corresponding main article. As I said in the previous AFD, we should just cut down the cruft, not delete the entire information. But why no nomination for series 12 and 13? – anemone projectors – 12:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * because they were not in the category; now ✅ Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also wanted to say that the deletion of the series 10 list created a large number of red links and broken redirects. That's not a reason to not delete but someone has to be willing to do the work if these are deleted and not merged/kept! – anemone projectors – 13:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. I don't get it. This is the normal way of profiling contestants/finalists in major reality TV series, such as Big Brother and X-factor. The contestants are widely profiled, have dozens of hours of TV coverage, featured in newspapers, interviewed etc. Merging such info to the main pages about the series would be unweildly in my view. All that being said, I completely agree that some of these pages are way out of hand, very poorly sourced and filled with BLP violations, which should be removed immediately. We have constant problems with fans trying to create standalone articles and, with a dedicated page to breif, sourced profiles of the contestants, it gives us a valid justification to stop these standalone fan pages. The argument for deleting/merging the pages seems either to be 'I don't like it' or 'it's poorly sourced', which seem weak excuses to remove them! Sionk (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, the vast bulk of the unsourced rubbish was added to List of Big Brother 13 housemates (UK) by an anonymous IP on 14 August 2012. The unsourced rubbish should have been removed immediately, rather than being an excuse for deletion of every other similar article. The remaining articles seem to be largely sourced and succinct. List of Big Brother 13 housemates (UK) seems to be the problem! Sionk (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach. To be honest, I don't really see the need for every X-Factor finalist to have a standalone list. If they need to be included anywhere, it's with an appropriate mention in the season article, with only things relevant to X-Factor, and nothing else, bar a sourced date of birth (and perhaps nationality if applicable). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid keep reason. Nor is your fan articles thing a valid keep reason (simply create a redirect for that person and SALT it, very simple solution) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It is quite standard custom and practise on Wikipedia to create sub-articles when it would be disruptive/overwhelming to keep the content in the main article. The words 'bandwagon' and 'jumping' spring to mind when I see all the "merge" votes ;) Sionk (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right but it is better than the delete pile-on here WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Big_Brother_10_housemates_(UK) that led to all this. Leaky  Caldron  18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I voted delete, and I voted redirect in the earlier AfD. Others may be bandwagon jumping, I most certainly am not. The fact is, in this case, most of these people justify a one-liner (their name, their date of birth and when they were eliminated from the house), and little more. Those in towards the end may justify more, but... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. The pages are not in the best of shape, however, they are gradually expanding (see series 1-5) and eventually all seasons will have more complete entries. Merging them into the main article would look terrible, and would make the pages way too lengthy. --Sethjohnson95 30 March 2013 9:13
 * Keep and clean up The BLP violations may justify page protection, possibly pending changes protection. But given the cultural significance that shows like Big Brother and other reality television have had for our culture (albeit not necessarily for the better), there is certainly more than enough material to cover in articles of this sort. Most participants in a programme like Big Brother are covered in some depth by reliable sources: TV criticism articles and magazines. Keep them, clean them up, find reliable sources, then whack them on pending changes protection so we can keep the BLP problems at bay. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- There seem two possible courses of action: (1) Keep, but purge similar material from the series article (2) merge back a summary to the series article. I have no view on which is better, but we do not need the same information duplicated in both articles .  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2013 (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.