Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7)
Firstly, to summarise, this article has been split off from Big Brother 2006 (UK) and I am arguing that it is now redundant to a table already existing in the article for the TV series.


 * Previous nomination
 * For those unfamiliar with the subject matter, 'Chronology' and 'Weekly summary' mean essentially the same thing, and series 7 is the series of Big Brother broadcast in 2006.

There have been several discussions already about whether this page should exist or whether it should just be a section in the Big Brother 2006 (UK) article. The main arguments expressed over May and June 2006 (around the start of the TV series) were that the section could get too long, and it should therefore be split, whilst others argued that it would be better for the section to be cut back.

The article was created and nominated for deletion where concerns were raised that the article was unencyclopaedic; the importance was questioned; it was suggested that the weekly summary should be trimmed; and it was also suggested to wait until the end of the series before taking action. The result of that debate was to delete the article but the weekly summary remained as a section in the article for the series. However, during the series there were further discussions about whether the weekly summary should be trimmed or split on to a separate article.

After the series finished, the series article underwent a peer review where it was suggested that the weekly summary was trimmed down. It was therefore trimmed down to around half its original size. Later on in the duration of the peer review, it was suggested that the weekly summary was split off into its own article. This happened and since then, it has received very few edits, apart from fixing some dead links and correcting formatting. Meanwhile, the weekly summary section in the series article was turned into a table and trimmed down further, but not significantly.

Now, we are at the stage where Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7) is essentially redundant to the table at Big Brother 2006 (UK) where the only noticeable difference between the two is that one is formatted as a table whilst the other is separated by headings. For this reason, I think Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7) should be deleted. Tra (Talk) 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree that article is redundant when compared to the table. Suggest that the footnote citations be copied over from the article into the table, as several points/facts are without reference. Following that delete or redirect as appropriate. -- saberwyn 04:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've copied the footnotes over, so the table now contains all of the same footnotes that were in the article, and a few more. Tra (Talk) 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And now this article is truly redundant. Thank you. Upgrading to Strong Delete or Redirect as article duplocating section in another article... I leave it to the closer's discretion as to the actual outcome. -- saberwyn 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unecyclopedic metter and as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete obsolete fancruft. Interesting comment on previous nom, of at least keep it till it's over, and it was still deleted. Khu  kri  - 09:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not appropriate material for an encyclopaedia. Individual incidents which attracted particular note and produced public debate can be mentioned in the article on the series. Sam Blacketer 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Highly unlikely as a search term so no need to redirect (unless you're in favour of keeping the page history). &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much point in worrying about the page history. Since the article has existed, the only changes made were formatting the references section, correcting a few spellings and dead links and nominating the article for deletion. Most of the work involved in making the content can be seen in the page history for Big Brother 2006 (UK). Tra (Talk) 01:11, 14 February 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.