Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother Australia 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This is a tightly-written article with very little in the way of speculation, and the consensus is to keep it. I have to ask all parties who are heavily invested in this AfD: Is it really worth fighting this much over a short article that would be re-created soon anyway? Grandmasterka 05:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Australia 2012[edit]

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)— Jschro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]

  • Keep as a confirmed upcoming season of a notable television show, set to begin airing within the next few months. A "Big Brother 2013" or "Big Brother 2014" would be far enough out to run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, but this is not the case here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the future show is receiving substantial media coverage now of a nature indicating that "the event is notable and almost certain to take place", the article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Keep now that the show has been confirmed and has received coverage in reliable sources. --Madison-chan (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At first I thought this was a joke; but no, this is serious. I'll be serious, and say keep. This article not only has substantial coverage from reliable sources, but isn't in violation of Crystal as per above comments. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Five sources from major Australian newspapers saying it's coming back; that's good enough for me. It's about as firm a go as you can get barring a complete and sudden change of management at Nine in the next few days. Nate • (chatter) 09:27, 15 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]

* Keep: Per WP:GNG and the show being confirmed. Sources are reliable and there is media coverage. --LauraHale (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: ""Blake was eager to dissolve one myth: We are talking to Channel Nine about next year and as much as I would like to joke about us definitely doing Big Brother, we're definitely not. [1] --LauraHale (talk) 20:42, 17 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]
Delete per {{Crystal}}. The article can be recreated when the show airs. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Bbmaniac there is NO "confirmed" information out there regarding Nine's plans to market the show and this source that appears to "confirm" Big Brother's schedule is laughable. They don't even credit an unnamed source! http://molkstvtalk.com/opinon/latest-news-photo-finish-its-a-knockout-big-brother-australia/ Jschro (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another piece of fine journalism! In the same sentence they claim Nine are refusing to comment but then seem to claim that they know the series will be produced on a "smaller scale". Again they don't even credit a source or a Nine Spokesperson. How is this creditable? How are any of these claims verifiable?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/tv/reality-tv-series-big-brother-is-set-for-a-reboot-with-a-2012-version-believed-destined-for-channel-9/story-e6frexlr-1226133304962 Jschro (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this source "confirms" Southern Star Entertainment are accepting as the article puts it "pre-audition applications for people who are interested in participating on the season" Even the facebook page they link to in the source claims anything like that. You know so much for the page containing only factual information!
http://www.southernstarentertainment.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=4&Itemid=5
https://www.facebook.com/BigBrotherAU Jschro (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would encourage editors to read WP:RS and WP:DENY. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I've said, with taking everything under consideration, there is an overwhelming desire to keep the page. I can understand that the sources are not to your taste, Jschro, but I think the majority of the readers agree that it is suitable. Bbmaniac (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBmaniac your cockyness astounds me. The source material I've questioned is clearly NOT suitable material! You and others like you are making very uneducated assumptions and again you are making emotional arguments. Any support you're revived is far from OVERWHELMING. Also DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS! It is not your place to do that.
I think you'll find that it is overwhelming; just look at the above responses. All but a few of them are in favour to keep. Let me remind you of my original argument and that of WP:IGNORE whereby it is necessary to ignore standard modes of operation in favour of the quality of information on Wikipedia. Here, you don't agree the sources are valid. We could technically wait until we have full, bonafide guarantee from Nine, but when there is 99.9% certainty, withholding information is hindering the quality of this page. This page serves a purpose because despite the fact no word has come from Nine, it is with almost 100% certainty (there isn't much between this and the actual certainty) that there will be a series and it will follow format mentioned in the article. As I've said, MANY seasons of MANY shows have been created successfully on Wikipedia using references to articles much less credible than the one's used now. This page for some reason is coming under more intense scrutiny despite the fact people are well adjusted to the fact that the sources used are to be trusted. You continue to draw reference to things like 'New York Times' and 'Oxford' as examples of 'good quality sources' which is crazy as news from the world of television is seldom broken in these publications. They are often broken in sources like TV Tonight and the Sydney Morning Herald, both of which show VERY CLEARLY what is rumour and what is not. There is no information on the page that misleads people into thinking it is pure fact, but it serves a purpose because the certainty of the events listed happening is based on a very educated guess and is well received by the community. And Jschro, I will not be editing your post again, considering any uninvolved admin will NOT just look at ONE PART of the discussion ANYWAY, as you so requested. But I strongly urge you that in future, you MUST ask an uninvolved admin to review THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION as your request is basically asking the admin to view your side of the argument only. Bbmaniac (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And let me just add, that at least this page HAS references. Many pages on Wikipedia has information that goes unreferenced due to the community consensus that the information is true. This article has full, verifiable pieces of referenced information that the community clearly agrees is true. There is a massive, nationwide acceptance amongst the media that most of the clarified items in the article are in fact true because there's little chance (if any) that it isn't. This is a confirmed series with a very much confirmed format and timeslot, the information in context is referenced appropriately and the community (both on Wikipedia and outside) backs it up. Bbmaniac (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't speak for the entire community. Just because people have voted a certain way doesn't mean they understand the full scope of the situation. The page at face value appears to be in ship-shape but when you look at it in depth as I've illustrated it is not all it appears to be. What you fail to understand here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is NOT a means for relaying rumors or speculation. There is little benefit to Wikipedia as a whole in doing so. As I've illustrated above the majority of sources are not verifiable and you are 100% correct in saying that the quality will drop of the article if those sources are excluded. This is the perfect argument for the article to be merged with the larger Big Brother article until such time that more verifiable information is available. You've just illustrated the point I've been making all along here, There is no great importance to the article as it currently stands. There is very little actual verifiable or encyclopedic content. By ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines this article is nothing more than a means for relaying rumor and speculation about the show. The fact that there are other articles on the site who are violation of the guidelines is completely irrelevant, we are ONLY talking about the merits of this article. From what has been said here there is no indication that the others are in agreement of a violation but merely that there is a general belief that everything appears to be in order. I've been following the shows revival since the announcement was made in September and I would not say that there is a "massive" consensus or acceptance of any of the details you speak of and very little of it is verifiable. The shear number of media outlets reporting these claims is irrelevant and due to circular sourcing of many of these articles they are far from verifiable. Because the project is still very much in the planning stages there is actually a pretty significant chance that details will in fact change before the show airs. For that reason it is extremely hard to say without a doubt that any unverifiable claims made by the media are dead certain. Nine Network is currently on the verge of bankruptcy and much of the media are expecting a change in ownership before years end. This could bring significant doubts over whether Big Brother will even make it to air on the Nine Network or whether there will be significant changes to the plans that are already in place. I'm not saying this is certainly the case but there is a chance it might happen. Deleting this article will by no means hurt Wikipedia and in fact the community as a whole will see the benefit of it. The larger article as it stands at the moment is far from perfect. Merging will encourage improvements as well as make it easier for all of us editors to monitor content being shared about the upcoming series. I still fail to see the exact purpose this article has other than acting as a product announcement and a means of sharing unverified information. I fail to see how it currently benefits Wikipedia as a whole. Despite the current consensus on the matter there are currently more benefits to merging than there are to keeping. I just hope the Admins who have the final say on this agree based on the information I've provided. Bbmaniac the more you argue your point on this matter the weaker your argument becomes. Please stop speaking like you are the voice of the community as you have no indications as to how many of these people came to the conclusions they did. BTW I don't need to explain to you my motives behind asking for a review of a certain block of comments and it is not up to you to decide whether I was right or wrong in doing so.Jschro (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hamish and Andy were widely reported to have landed the hosting role and many media outlets reported this was a dead certainty. The duo later denied this claims as false. This is a great example of my arguments. Just because something is reported by several media outlets does not mean it is verifiable nor does it mean any of the claims are true. I'd like to draw your attention to this news.com.au article that states little is known or confirmed about the series. Including the format, future home, or production schedule despite making claims that support the "Secrets format" and other claims you are under the belief are "widely accepted" facts. You will most likely find that other outlets reporting these "facts" are in fact guilty of circular sourcing other articles. Most of these articles are implying that these "facts" are only rumors. Any public opinion regarding these supposed fact would there for be considered irrelevant.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/hamish-blake-and-andy-lee-set-to-run-the-big-brother-tv-house/story-e6frfmyi-1226162682751 Jschro (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jschro, might I say thank you for a very decent response. The way this comment was worded was much more in line with a mature discussion. I've read your article and in no way does it imply 'with great certainty' that Hamish & Andy were locked into the hosting role. In fact, the first key point the article had at the top of the page was: Hamish and Andy among names for Big Brother which pretty much concludes that Hamish & Andy were not actually confirmed at all to be hosts. And it may well have been that Nine were considering them; I wouldn't be surprised. Using the same example, and I haven't seen one long-held edit which had this BBAU2012 article claiming they were the hosts anyway. Also, the source that I said was credible, TV Tonight, never even ran with this story, well they did, but it was only an opinion piece as to why Hamish & Andy were not going to be good hosts. The title of that article had a big fat '?' in it as well. And even with confirmed things, like when TEN 'confirmed' Don't Stop Believing, the network can (and in this instance, did) pull the show from their schedule. So I don't think the information on this article is any less guaranteed to go ahead as any confirmed media information. Bbmaniac (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'What you fail to understand here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is NOT a means for relaying rumors or speculation.'- Again, your idea of what 'speculation' is differs from a majority of people that read this page.
'There is little benefit to Wikipedia as a whole in doing so.'- look at the people who want the page to stay- it is clearly not HARMING Wikipedia.
'the quality will drop of the article if those sources are excluded'- if and when 'proper' sources come in to confirm everything on this page, it will look silly to just reestablish it with the same information, JUST because someone didn't trust some of the sources. I continue to feel that this article has a place on Wikipedia, as do many others. Bbmaniac (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems counter productive to delete this (fairly reasonable, decently referenced) article now, and then start it up again from scratch when the show debuts. All the preliminary information will be lost, and it will be difficult to retrieve all this relevant early information - and sources - at that time. Isn't WP about collating information about notable things? Therefore we don't want to lose it, it will be difficult to recreate after months have elapsed. Format (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: editors are encouraged read WP:REFUND which details the process for retrieving deleted articles should their subject subsequently achieve notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Bbmaniac it's you that is putting lipstick on a pig. Please stop speaking like you are the voice of the people you have no indication of how others think, feel, or came to the conclusions they did. It's not helping your case.Jschro (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just quickly before I begin, Jschro, I don't claim to 'speak like I am the voice of the people', I'm just stating what the general consensus is according to the above votes to keep and the comments associated. Well, I have proved time and time again why the references and information are verifiable and viable for a Wikipedia article yet you still don't seem convinced. Clearly you see this information as false. Yes, this information has not yet been absolutely confirmed by Nine, but if the information was still up-in-the-air then surely there would be articles out there opposing the news of the show's format and timeslot. The fact is, there isn't. Not one source out there flatly denies or even questions the format or timeslot of the show; proving the information's resilience to criticism and strengthens its validity. Considering this discussion is about to be reviewed, I will say one last thing to conclude and finalise the points being made to save the article. The main opposition to this page is that the information contained in the article apparently breaches some of Wikipedia's rules, most notably WP:CRYSTAL. But as this discussion hopefully points out according to the comments made by many of the participants, the information contained does not, in any way, attempt to crystal ball events in the past and is based on verifiable information sourced from incredibly credible sources. Sources of which have been used on many Wikipedia articles and have in the past passed as a rich source of worthy information. The article does contain information that may not be confirmed but its inclusion is necessary and improves the overall article with any information that did not having been removed. Another key opposing point is the suggestion this page be created later when 'confirmed' information comes to light. This 'confirmed' information (that is, information that is sourced from the Nine Network) is almost certain to agree with what has already been posted, therefore making any delays in creating the article pointless and hence, not beneficial to Wikipedia's quality. 'Confirmed' information is set to be released as early as Wednesday, adding to the pointlessness of having this page deleted. It also seems that the main opposition to this page is based on personal thoughts and beliefs, and does not reflect the wider Wikipedia community. As the discussion moves on, it is clear that opposing points deflect away from talk about how the article offends Wikipedia's rules and regulations and moves towards what one individual thinks about page creation and information. This is partially because most points about how this page offends Wikipedia's Rules and Regulations have been cleared up and the general community consensus seems to agree with the points against the opposition. While the saviour of this page will not rely on this conclusion, I hope than when reading through the votes to keep and delete, this conclusion will make it very clear just how important this article is to Wikipedia. Bbmaniac (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as anyone could have told you before; Nine has confirmed the format via an advertisement. Bbmaniac (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE - It appears that this AfD may have been the subject of canvassing by User:Jschro and User:Bbmaniac. See here and here. Just spotted this in passing and it may be the case I haven't appreciated the full context, so I just raise it for attention. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I was only asking for someone to come and review the discussion; I wasn't actually asking for votes or anything. I was just hoping that when the time came to review the discussion, someone would be on board to do this. If you want me to retract my comments, I am more than happy to; but I was in no way trying to draw attention to the topic based on my own want of support; but for someone to come in and review this page. Bbmaniac (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through their respective edit histories I'm seeing a few edits to the talk pages of people who seem to already understand how AfDs work (+ people who had already voted), if any of these were canvassing they're complete failures. I see no influx of users to the debate which is the tell-tale sign of successful canvassing. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_Brother_Australia_2012&oldid=1137617124"