Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

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 of the debate was delete — Cel es tianpower ^háblame 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 7 Chronology[edit]

This is way too much information about a tv show that can be found elsewhere, and repeats a lot of what is already said on wikipedia (such as eviction days). -- cds^(talk) 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to be detailed!!! we're gonna cut it down - just at the end of the show, that's all!!! then, and only then, can we really decide what's worth keeping!! just leave it for now!! Ellisjm 00:02 UTC 1 June 06

Delete as unencyclopedic. It reads like someones blog. "On Day 13 George walked - it is assumed for the reasons he stated the day before." Assumed by whom?--Ezeu 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep as I learned a lot from reading it (and I'm something of a fanatic!) We must be careful to be completely fair, and - like User:Ezeu says - perhaps in some places it could more easily understood, but major kudos to Ellisjm for putting in the time--luke 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This article has got to go somewhere. It can't go on the main BB page because it would take up to much room etc. This article is a detailed diary of what happened. As for the "On Day 13 George walked.....day before." I am about to change that day completely! I only wrote it quickly cos it was 1am!! Ellisjm 09:47 UTC 1 June 06
Keep this is too long to go on the main article. Regardless of detail, even a less extensive chronology would take up too much room on the page.Barbara Osgood 12:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is necessary to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 12:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A notice from User:Ellisjm was found on this user's talk page, an on the article talk page, asking people to vote "keep". -- cds^(talk) 12:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And..? I would have voted "keep" even if that "notice" wasn't on my talk page. Why are you working so hard to not have this page stay? --JD^talk_email 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP' The infromation would be lost without it Joss 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joss Trampikey 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this could go on for ages. It is getting long already and it is only finishing Week 2. There are 13 weeks in total and anything could still happen. This article could go on for ages. However, I think it is a good idea but I am against how long it could get. I have no other idea to how to shorten it... - Erebus555 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Agree with Ezeu. There needs to be restraint when contributing to the main article's page. Far too much fancruft. Only absolutely essential info, like evictions/walk outs/entrances/major arguments (such as Fight Night in BB5), should be included. Hit this on the head now. It belongs on fan sites, not on Wikipedia. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd just like to point out that I have every intention of shortening the article at the end of the show. At this present moment, it's difficult to think about which items are really needed. It will be easier to chop when the show has finished. Ellisjm 17:07 UTC 1 June 06

Then if it's shortened, why split it? -- cds^(talk) 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even shortened, it's probably too burdensome on the main article (though it strikes me now that it should be borne in mind that these initial two weeks have been more...eventful, than average). And as Ellisjm says, it's not possible to determine "essential" events until after the thing is over. It's a necessary part of the evolution of the main article. Barbara Osgood 18:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The vast majority of the keep votes so far are from users who have created the article. It's not for an encyclopedia, it's not for Wikipedia, so let's just keep the chronology short(ish) and sweet in the main article. — FireFox ^user_talk 17:07, 01 June '06

Only two people that have posted here have made any revisions to either of the chronology pages, one is Ellisjm and the other is 9cds. Nobody else has made an edit to any of them. --JD^talk_email 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase. The vast majority of the keep votes so far are from users who originally supported splitting the chronology into a separate article. — FireFox ^user_talk 17:13, 01 June '06

Is that so bad? --JD^talk_email 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying (specifically to the closing administrator), that we definitely need to get some votes from "outsiders" to gain a clear consensus here. — FireFox ^user_talk 17:19, 01 June '06

If the same people that want this article to stay are the same people that wanted to originally split the article, then they are standing up for what they want, no? And if they are the only people that are bothering to vote, at least they voted. They should be counted like any other person's. --JD^talk_email 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote - see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy for more details. -- cds^(talk) 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, unfortunate choice of words, that's all. — FireFox ^user_talk 17:36, 01 June '06

Of course your opinions are going to be counted. I'm not saying they're not going to be. — FireFox ^user_talk 17:31, 01 June '06

Delete - I thought the whole point of Reality TV was that the people and events were not notable, "regular folks"... — AKADriver ☎ 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Joanne B 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this page going to be used to document everything that happens in the house, or a place to have the weekly summaries? --JD^talk_email 18:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoanneB and FireFox --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst reality TV is non notable people the fact that they appear on Reality TV in effect surely makes them notable. -- JAB^[T]_[C] 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - May be worth looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television#Plot -- cds^(talk) 09:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a complete stranger to this debate, and as somebody who hates 'reality TV' and personally considers it intrinsically unencyclopedic, the chronology of something ongoing like this is nonetheless highly significant to many people which makes it notable. Once the series is over it can be condensed. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and can afford the tiny bit of space this article uses on the servers. Having said all that, the article as it stands is pretty poor and could do with some major work which I am personally not offering to do! Still, as I understand it, that is grounds for adding a tag or two, not for deletion. --Guinnog 15:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, certainly needs to be condensed in the future. Essexmutant 18:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be used for daily summaries so as to keep the main page small. The important details should go on the main page. Michaelritchie200 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the title is epic, but the contents are crap. Grue 10:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to keep all the trivial details off the main BB7 page. At the end of the series, this article should be heavily condensed. Keep at least while the series is running - after that important information could be moved from this page to the main article. Celardore 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'KEEP'KEEP'KEEP - AtLEAST until it's over!

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.