Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20 to 1: One Hit Wonders

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The result of the debate was KEEP (Nomination Withdrawn). Mike Beckham 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 to 1: One Hit Wonders[edit]

Original research, opinion-based. Note: at the time of nomination, article consisted of a list of artists, without reference to a TV series etc. Given how the article now looks, I would suggest a keep --OscarTheCat ^talk 22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again you idiot deletionists have no idea: [1]. Next time do your research before you delete an important article. R o gerthat ^Talk 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment might I suggest that referring to people as "Idiot deletionists" is possibly not the best way to get them on board. It seems the article is an episode from an Australian quiz show....I have no idea about this one, abstain. Jcuk 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps they should do some research before they speedily delete things like this. BTW, this should be categorised under incomplete lists. R o gerthat ^Talk 00:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since other 20 to 1 episodes have (stubby) articles. Coming from a (self-proclaimed) stupid goddamn idiot deletionist. So there. -- Krash (Talk) 22:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for the moment. I can't see how something like posting the top twenty list from every episode of a top 20 TV show can possibly reach the notability standard. I presume the show has its own web site where it could do this. Listing the show, I sort of get, but just posting the lists from each episode? However I am new here and I am curious what others think. (Don't appreciate being called an idiot, though, nosiree. Thatcher131 22:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This show was on last night. However, it only lists 3 of the allegedly top 20 that were shown. Capitalistroadster 22:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Merge into a new article which compiles the episodes by series. Other episodes have articles, and they're usually incomplete and messy. Cnwb 23:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (from an Australian if it matters). Though certainly not original research, this is an incomplete article about a non-notable episode in a series that isn't that notable itself. Cedars 02:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen so many articles on crap American shows, why shouldn't there be articles on crap Australian shows? Considering there is also the 20 to 1 article. R o gerthat ^Talk 02:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Keep WTF Is wrong with people on wikipedia deleting things? Why dosent this warrant an article? Is it hurting anyone? no is there much info? yes so it should stay and persons outside of Australia shouldent comment as they have no clue. - Mike Beckham 03:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as with Roger, using profanity (even abbreviated) is not going to make you any allies. My point of view (and I abstained above and continue to abstain) is that even if the show 20 to 1 is notable that does not make individual episodes notable, especially when they consist solely of top 20 lists. For example, the VH1 show Best Week Ever gets an entry, but not separate articles for each episode. I would also like to point out that posting the weekly top 20 list verbatim may be a copyright violation. Thatcher131 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont black mail please, there is no copyright infrindgement that is plain trying to scare people into agreeing with you. Rogerhat has nothing to do with my opinion and its just conincidence that he has a similar opinion. - Mike Beckham 05:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you had anything to do with Roger but both of you were rather rude. Regarding copyright, I'm not trying to blackmail anyone. Copyright protects original creative output; Fair Use has to be a small proportion of the whole. Well, a top 20 list is just that. The question for an expert would be is the list itself protected or is the list a small enough part of the whole show to post here. As a test I signed up to have Dave Letterman's top 10 list e-mailed to me, and it carried a copyright notice. I'm sure someone more expert than I will post a definitive answer. Thatcher131 05:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is it hurting anyone? - no. But by that rationale I ought to pop on my grandfather's favourite mouth-organ recitals. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. --OscarTheCat ^talk

07:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why did noone say anything when these pages were being created for last year's (2005) series of 20 to 1? TheRealAntonius 09:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question just some person browsing through knowing nothing about the subject and cause they dont it should be deleted :( - Mike Beckham 09:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem here is the fact that the article should be merged, why don't you people do something and lead by example and MERGE THE ARTICLE? All the effort put into deleting a noteworthy article could be spent simply by merging the article in whatever problem areas you see. First of all, read the 20 to 1 article and learn about the television series. If you don't know about something, don't propose for it to be deleted, let knowledgable people sort it out. R o gerthat ^Talk 12:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree - Mike Beckham 12:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete/make category. Now, to Mike Beckham, please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Stifle 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all please dont point me to articles thats rude in itself and obviously you would vote that way as you have a "This user is a Wikipedia deletionist." as I am an inclusionist I would vote my way not only that this is a article that deserves to stay, now you are not even near Australia and I am guessing wouldent have a clue about the show or anything else on the subject so you just vote delete as you are a deletist apparently. And this isnt a personal attack its just stating some facts and a opinion of mine. - Mike Beckham 22:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, it is a personal attack - it is arguing with me on the grounds of who I am, rather than what I am saying. There's a fancy Latin phrase for it, I think it's "ad hominem". And yes, I am a deletionist. Deal. Stifle 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletionism should not equate to "Never heard of this before, delete it". Please consider that there may be notable topics which you are unfamiliar with, and notability is a property of geography. Something notable to a Finn might not seem notable to a Russian, and vice cersa. - Synapse 04:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. Stifle 21:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Stifle 21:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NPOV, Verifiable. Snottygobble 23:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, the article's been cleaned up and now this deletion notice should be gone. Next time, just but {{cleanup}} instead of delete...especially when you have NO IDEA of what the subject is. R o gerthat ^Talk 01:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I have now done a full clean up and expanded the article. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its a keeper then. Deal ;) - Mike Beckham 03:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I just used this for information regarding the show. This shows the 20th biggest moments etc in Australian History, this is important. I too agree that people from outside Australia should not comment, they have no justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.67.193 (talk • contribs)

Comment - I hope you all understand my previous anger at all you deletionists' disgraceful nomination of this article for deletion. Hopefully you've all learned a lesson from this and next time do your research or get the opinion of someone in the know before you delete something so hastily. Very disappointed at how this was handled. Now let us know when you actually contribute to an article. R o gerthat ^Talk 09:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect, Roger, I stand by my original nomination. Articles containing merely a list of 4 artists (as this was originally) are likely to reviewed and nominated by the RC Patrol. If author wants to slowly evolve the article, perhaps creation within their user pages is more suitable, or at least add a tag to the article showing it as work in progress. Best wishes. --OscarTheCat ^talk 07:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this page then and archive it? Mike Beckham 08:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I did Mike Beckham 08:07, 16 February 2006 (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.