Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother Australia 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jschro (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 17 November 2011 (→Big Brother Australia 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Big Brother Australia 2012

Big Brother Australia 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why the page should be deleted Jschro (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jschro (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article should be deleted for a number of reasons. In accordance with {{Crystal}}:

Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.

It is too soon for this article to be created and only verified information should be included in the larger Big brother Related article. In the short time this page has been in existence there has been a great deal of debate over verifiable sources and a recent edit war. As the launch approaches there will be an abundance of rumors and speculation that will pass through the mainstream media. While normally reliable sources of information there is a large amount of grey area over what should be included and what should not. I feel that having this page stay in it's current form is an invitation for countless edits and an ongoing battle regarding the reliability of source material. Included in this discussion should be discussion of an acceptable date for creation of this article as well as CLEAR guidelines on what should and should not be included in the future article but what should be included when or if the article is merged with the larger Big Brother topic. Jschro (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

  • Keep- There is no given reason as to why this page should be deleted. This page adheres to Wikipedia's rules and regulations. All information has come from official quotes and information provided by Nine and trusted affiliates. As far as I can see, everything that needs to be referenced is. Other countries have Big Brother pages for known seasons, I don't see why Australia is no different. I can understand if a page for 'Big Brother Australia 2013' would be deleted, but I cannot see why this one should. I think the person proposing deletion of this page has not thought this through properly. Any problems with the page can be discussed in Discussions and I would be happy to help and clean it up in regards to the problems, but without any given reasons, this is difficult to do. Bbmaniac (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you have now provided reason which was not provided before, thank you. The problems you listed are evident in many Big Brother related pages, and I do agree it is a shame, however I am happy to help out with you or a team to get this page back on track. The majority of the information contained currently is informative and based on fact. I don't see why this page is being targeted, I don't think deletion is necessary, but I would say this page serves a purpose. It is not far too early as information about the series will become available as soon as next week when the Nine Network has its programming launch. Bbmaniac (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bbmaniac. You know as well as I that much of the up coming "information" will be purely speculation and rumor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a means for relaying rumor and speculation. Yes only after an edit war was the page brought up to "code" otherwise it did infact include information from unverifiable and unreliable sources and that will only continue as Big Brother 2012 picks up steam. As of right now there is very little information contained within the article and there isn't going to be much in the coming months which is deserving of inclusion in this article. Just because a source like News.com.au (which is normally a reliable source) does not make them reputable and certainly is not grounds for inclusion in the article. As I said before there is simply TOO MUCH grey area right now for this article to stand on it's own and its main purpose at this time is to act as a haven for unreliable information. Big Brother is likely to air in August of next year which is 9 months away it is still far too soon for this article to be as it is now. Jschro (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the upcoming information I am talking about will be from Nine Network's (the network in which Big Brother Australia 2012 will be airing on) 2012 Programming Launch to be held on November 23. Any information acquired from this will be as true and reliable as news can be coming direct from the source. The page has been cleaned up of rumour and speculation, as what is usually the case on Wikipedia. Anyone can go on any page dedicated to events that lie further into the future than Big Brother Australia 2012 (and yes, these pages do exist) and start rumours and speculation. Should these pages be deleted too? For as much speculation and as many rumours that will circulate over the next months, there will be ample verifiable news filtering through as well, so the page will grow. The votes below already verify that people value this page for its information (which at the present moment is all verifiable) and I just cannot see where the reason is to delete it. Bbmaniac (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the show actually starts in Australia then it will get an article, as Big Brother is an extremely notable reality show. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that's really the ONLY information there will be for a while that isn't either rumor or Speculation. Please review Crystal thoroughly before you cast your vote. Had you read WP:CRYSTAL you'd clearly understand why this has been nominated for deletion. Jschro (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to read CRYSTAL at all. If it was just solely rubbish sites like tabloids, gossip and reality sites, and whatever the local equivalent of Perez Hilton is down under, then yes, I'd definitely consider CRYSTAL. At this point though we have the national media backing it up boisterously. It's also very pointless to go through an AFD discussion if the article will come back anyway only hours after deletion when Nine does officially announce it. It's not hurting the site to keep this, as the sources are downright pristine compared to the usual reality show comeback articles. Also, why would you announce a show without a cast or basic production structure? The network and production company are doing exactly what should be done before a pickup is announced; have the cast and setting ready from well before announcement day to premiere. Nate • (chatter) 07:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taken directly from WP:CRYSTAL "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." In this case Reality Show and "Product are the same thing and right now aside from a few other bits of speculation the article is nothing more than a "Product Announcement". Any information that is going to possibly be released "soon" will not go into any great amount of detail and therefore would only be considered as part of the "Announcement" phase. "Until such time that more "ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE" about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." The key word being "UNTIL" so in other words "AFTER THE FACT" As a long time fan I can assure all of you that despite Nine's upcoming 2012 Schedule launch in a weeks time there will be very little verifiable facts released until at the very least 1 or 2 months prior to the actual launch of the show. This is the most important piece of information I can pass along to all of you and one that you all need to pay the most attention to and use in consideration when you are voting is "Speculation and rumor, even from RELIABLE SOURCES, are NOT APPROPRIATE encyclopedic content." Please don't think this discussion is over just yet people. I suggest you start looking beyond the surface on this one. This is clearly a WP:CRYSTAL matter. Jschro (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've highlighted key terms because I feel many of you need to review or seek clarification on their true definition because you clearly don't understand them.Jschro (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These people do understand what 'crystal balling' is. This article does not 'crystal ball' anything. Everything on the page is sourced with great verifiability, is not rumour and is a little more than just an 'announcement'. Here we have information on format and Southern Star's marketing of the show and its casting stage. But of course you would say 'we don't understand them', because as it usually goes with one unhappy editor (and in this case, it is literally only ONE of you), the fact that this page means more to people than just 'announcements' just isn't getting through.
In this instance, I point you to this very straight forward rule: WP:IAR which clearly states 'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.', so even though it is without any doubt this page has no crystal balling going on; I would even still choose to ignore the rule legally under the basis that it is bringing people's fascination to the site and it educating them on information that, as I've stated numerously, IS VERIFIABLE- hence improving Wikipedia's knowledge base on the topic of Big Brother Australia. Bbmaniac (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to change my vote to Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW. This discussion proves nothing more that this deletion nomination hasn't a Snowball's chance in hell at passing through to deletion. This tag is technically pointless and should be removed immediately. Bbmaniac (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proves yet again that you haven't a clue what you are talking about and are completely missing the point. I have a great idea of what WP:CRYSTAL is and this is a text book case of it. There is little information in the article at this time and does NOT warrant it's own article. BBmaniac you have an obvious bias here. Again "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate."' end of story. As I said before BBmaniac this conversation is FAR from over. Jschro (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually want to move for wp:SPEEDY because this conversation is going nowhere. The Article and it's sources are really nothing more than promotional at this time. WP;CRYSTAL states that pages that are nothing more than product announcements (which is all that this article IS or is going to be for sometime) are grounds for deletion. There are too many people commenting here that haven't a clue what they are talking about and clearly MUST be deleted.Jschro (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually I just changed my vote from 'Keep' to 'Speedy Keep' which doesn't prove that I haven't a clue what I'm talking about; it solidifies by stance on the topic. This discussion is going no where? Clearly it is; and it is in the direction to keep. We've explained why your WP:CRYSTAL claim is nonsensical and you repeating it over and over is the only reason why any further discussion on that topic is pointless.Bbmaniac (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart, can you clarify which part or parts of the article in question is 'rumour, speculation and hype'? All information contained in the page is verifiable and confirmed information from respected sources. Bbmaniac (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bbmaniac check your emotional attachment to this article at the door. The articles creator SHOULD NOT be involved in this debate. Over the next YEAR (yes BB will NOT air for close to a YEAR from now!) this page will be a haven for vandals and unverified rumors. There is very little information within the article in its current form BUT over the coming year WILL and HAS been subject to the items Stuart talks about. Clearly you feel the fact that an article YOU created is marked for deletion is a personal attack on you and any response from you on the subject is purely emotional. This is not helpful in any way. It is still very clear that this article should be merged with the larger Big Brother Australia article until there is more verifiable and factual information. We are not questioning whether the series will happen or not but that there will be little information released for sometime the series to warrant it's own article at this time. Please stop spreading your uneducated emotional nonsense in this discussion. 142.110.227.191 (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Uneducated emotional nonsense" - Do I see a Personal attack? I think someone should assume good faith when dealing with other editors, and discuss civily with them. And Bbmaniac can be involved in this debate, regardless of what fictional policy you pulled "The articles creator SHOULD NOT be involved in this debate" from. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to spend too much time deliberating on this issue as it isn't relevant to the discussion, but as the articles creator, I have the utmost right to be apart of this conversation. The emotional attachment you speak of is an unprovoked attack on myself. I do not feel as if this deletion tag is a 'personal attack' in any way and I applaud it coming to light due to the discussion it has raised. I do not write with emotional bias, I simply state facts when I see them. I have simply rebutted Stuart's opposition to the article, which I am free to do so. I accept his position, however I am well within my rights to discuss with him his points. I never said this was a discussion as to whether or not the series will go ahead, I know this series is going ahead. This discussion IS about whether this page fouls WP:CRYSTAL which, in my opinion, it does not. This is the only way I have defended this article, I have written nothing about whether the show has been confirmed or not. While I will take your thoughts on me being 'emotional' as petty, I will say that I have gone about this discussion with full knowledge on Wikipedian regulations, so do not call me uneducated. Not to make this sound like a personal attack on you or anything, but you have written on behalf of someone else's comment, under an anonymous guest signature, added little to this discussion and launched a personal attack on me. Excuse me if I and the rest of the community ignore your comments in future. Bbmaniac (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok could someone explain how as the article sits right now is really any different that a product announcement? Also what significant pieces of information you believe will be released in the immediate future? If current rumors are true there is still approximately 8 months until the show is launched. Historically the bulk of information is released no earlier than a month or a few weeks before the show is launched and I don't anticipate this to change. I also don't anticipate there will be a significant amount of information to be released at Nine's program launch next week aside from a solid confirmation that the show will return. Can you not at least see some benefit to merging with the Larger Big Brother article for the time being? Jschro (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, Jschro. This isn't just an 'announcement' of the show. We currently have verifiable information on the channel it will air on, the format of the show, discussions taking place as to the location (I might add that while this discussion is not finite and could be viewed as just speculation, these comments come from 'the horse's mouth' so to speak and do contribute to the overall knowledge base on this article), we know marketing strategies and casting initiatives courtesy of creators, Southern Star Group and we also know that Nine is specifically going to launch the series after the Olympics. Therefore, this page is a little bit more than a product announcement. There will be more information coming out, however despite what 'history has shown us', predicting when that information will be released is 'crystal balling' in its own right. It could be released next week or in a few months. Bbmaniac (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nine is specifically going to launch the series after the Olympics." We don't know that for sure yet even the article implies that it is "expected" and even the "format" can still be contested as there hasn't been a solid "confirmation" from either Nine or Endemol yet. Jschro (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there has been no official word made by Nine directly, however articles published on TV Tonight (the author of which is a long working respected member of the media who has ties with CEO David Gyngell) credits statements from Nine Network officials. That and other newspaper articles which credits in the same manner pretty much confirms these details. While this is not 100% confirmation, it is close enough for it to be allowed to be published on the page with the advice that it is still expected. Bbmaniac (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in the cases you've provided your sources are neither reliable nor verifiable because there is no direct link. The Entertainment media will often run articles that are highly speculative or based on unnamed and therefore unveridiable sources. Also in the interest of promotion networks will feed rumors through the press. Take Big Brother UK for example, Richard Desmond owns both Channel 5 and the Daily Star who ran several story's leading up to the launch of the show that contradicted reality. Tabloids and other entertainment outlets are notorious for putting their own interests before the truth. Now while we are not necessarily interested in "the truth" it is pretty hard to verify claims made by an unnamed "spy" or Representative. Sources that rely heavily on rumor are Questionable and are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties. It is not just the publisher that has to be reliable it is also the content sourced within the article that need to be verifiable as well. "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.)."Jschro (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided reasons as to why the sources are reliable. They're not perfect, but they're not 'rumour' sites. They are trusted and credible and hence verifiable. Many television articles on Wikipedia begin with quotes from these sources. But, if you don't like them, that's fine. However in this case it is up to the general community to make that decision and many have discussed their approval of them. These are not 'out there' rumours, this information is very much verifiable and is no less factual than a good 90% of television related information on Wikipedia. Bbmaniac (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a key quote. "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.)" It is not just the publisher that it subject to verification but also their work. While most articles will be considered reliable sources there will also be times when their work is questionable. In this case if an article credits an unnamed source it can only be considered rumor and is therefore questionable. ALL Entertainment sites are notorious for speculating and printing rumors. This is not a matter of my own personal opinion but a widely accepted fact. There is absolutely no way to verify claims made by an unnamed source. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors and a questionable source is on that relies heavily on rumor. In this case the source that must be verified is the actual work itself not the publisher or author. Jschro (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you could question A LOT of what is said on Wikipedia. Again, I have told you why the author of TV Tonight is credible and verifiable and the fact that pretty much EVERY newspaper in Australia has picked up on this news brushed off your claim that this is 'gossip' or 'rumour'. It is a widely accepted fact that the format and the air date has been locked in by Nine. Again, it is up to the people to decide and clearly, what they have seen is good enough for them and I would expect most of these people HAVE a considerable amount of knowledge over the way this event has been reported.Bbmaniac (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again it is not JUST the Author that needs to be subject to credibility or verification but ALSO the actual WORK being cited. Entertainment Websites are notorious for circular sourcing other media outlets. One particular article that was recently used as a source in the 2012 article was reporting on a report run by the Daily Telegraph which was reported to them by a media "spy". There were also several other papers that ran similar stories all based off of the Daily Telegraph "rumor". What I am telling you is exactly WHY the author is NOT creditable or verifiable in this case you need to make sure the WORK itself is verifiable before it can be considered reliable.Jschro (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a TV Tonight article. http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/11/sonia-kruger-to-host-big-brother.html
What is the First word in the article? Please tell me again that they are not a "Rumor" site. What about thos widely accepted facts about Hamish and Andy Hosting? I mean ALL the media outlets were reporting they were dead certain for the role only to retract the story a few days later. Many of these were quoting very trust worthy "insiders" too.Jschro (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If stuff from that article was used in this Wikipedia article, I would agree it would need to be deleted. But the stuff cited came from articles that were created under the guidance of Nine spokespersons. But in this case, common sense would prevail in saying that stuff from THAT PARTICULAR article would be pure speculation. Unlike most news outlets, David Knox has made it very clear that this is a rumour, however its newsworthiness comes from the fact it is a rumour based on good merit. That being said, the information within would not be deemed newsworthy here on Wikipedia. None of the information in the BBAU2012 article can be classed as the type of rumours found in the above link. Again, David makes it very clear what is rumour and what is news. There has also been a general consensus here on this page that the information found in the BB2012 article is verifiable enough. Even moderators have deemed it worthy.Bbmaniac (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article being sourced before you open your mouth again. You are just digging yourself a deeper hole in this argument "I understand we are doing it,” a Nine source confirmed." is far from verifiable. David Knox wrote an article based on the one written in the Herald Sun and this quote is taken from the bottom of the article "Update: I have now confirmed the story, with sources, but it’s “early days” on all the details…" I'll post links below for you but I'd say a lot of the information in both of these articles (both are sourced in the 2012 entry) are pretty shaky at best. Other than the claim that the source "understands" they are doing the show there is little connection between the source and the other claims being made. If a credited source isn't named it is pretty hard to prove verifiability.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv-radio/big-brother-returning-to-australian-television-in-2012/story-e6frf9ho-1226133266986
http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/09/big-brother-secrets-to-air-on-nine-in-2012.html Jschro (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your Cocksureness astounds me Bbmaniac. I doubt anyone has gone far enough as to actually read the source material and are basing it on the assumption that the articles are published by what would under normal circumstances be reputable. Jschro (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_Brother_Australia_2012&oldid=461112249"