Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigg Boss 6 (2nd nomination)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bigg Boss 6[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Bigg Boss 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 19. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Significant coverage by Indian media Mid-day,CNN_IBN, Hindustan Times, Daily Bhaskar, India Today, Deccan Chronicle, NDTV, MSN, Times of India etc. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy (x1000) Keep: It's a Major reality show. Major. Major. La Major. All the copyvio content has been removed. There has to be a separate page for it. -- I'm Titanium chat 07:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough sources (in the article as well as mentioned here by Redtiger) to support a standalone article --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable show! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, but irrelevant. This discussion must focus on whether a particular season of the show is notable. Remember that notability is not inherited. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to the links posted by Redtigerxyz u might get to know how notable season 6 is.-- I'm Titanium chat 11:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I missed it. I meant Bigg Boss 6 is a notable show. I don't need to mention that Bigg Boss the series is notable. This can be merged to main article, but, I think then it'll make it too long. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And ya, though I don't watch this show, I regularly watch is being discussed in Times of India- the newspaper I read. Discussion on even the minute details of the show makes me believe the show has got the speed. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, Titto's talking about this --> [1] -- I'm Titanium chat 10:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And ya, though I don't watch this show, I regularly watch is being discussed in Times of India- the newspaper I read. Discussion on even the minute details of the show makes me believe the show has got the speed. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I missed it. I meant Bigg Boss 6 is a notable show. I don't need to mention that Bigg Boss the series is notable. This can be merged to main article, but, I think then it'll make it too long. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to the links posted by Redtigerxyz u might get to know how notable season 6 is.-- I'm Titanium chat 11:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the main article Bigg Boss. The given state of article has nothing much encyclopedic that deserves standalone article. Encyclopedic stuff in it would hardly fit in a para. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think these British, US, Australian, Pinoy versions of Bigg Boss have much in common with the encyclopedic content you are talking about? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Put these articles up for deletion for the same reasons and then you'll see what an uproar you'll initiate. And Dharmadhyaksha I would ask you to not chicken out this time around like you did in the Jhalak Dikhlaa Jaa case. Take a step bro if you are so passionate about wikipedia. Make the change.-- I'm Titanium chat 08:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will say it only once. If the closing admins and others find it reasonable enough, they will act accordingly. If its falling on deaf ears, i am wise enough to not strain my throat.
And one more time for you; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will say it only once. If the closing admins and others find it reasonable enough, they will act accordingly. If its falling on deaf ears, i am wise enough to not strain my throat.
- Do you think these British, US, Australian, Pinoy versions of Bigg Boss have much in common with the encyclopedic content you are talking about? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Put these articles up for deletion for the same reasons and then you'll see what an uproar you'll initiate. And Dharmadhyaksha I would ask you to not chicken out this time around like you did in the Jhalak Dikhlaa Jaa case. Take a step bro if you are so passionate about wikipedia. Make the change.-- I'm Titanium chat 08:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A notable season of a major TV show, and is covered widely in the entertainment-related meda. Meets general notability criteria easily.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article still has some problems (namely, copyright infringements and fancruft) but notability and reliable sources aren't among them. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you suggest dealing with those problems? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright infringements no longer constitute the majority of the article; the remaining ones are already being processed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Imtitanium and Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The fancruft can simply be removed if and when a consensus is reached to do so. There's already a {{plot}} maintenance tag on the page and an associated discussion on the talk page. Anyone who agrees that the "plot" information is too long can say so on the talk page and/or boldly remove the superfluous details from the article. (Someone already tried to do this but was immediately reverted by User:Imtitanium, so perhaps it's best to establish consensus on the talk page first.) —Psychonaut (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag will go in few days, without any change to the article. Then November would come and same tag will be placed as November 2012. The cycle repeats till good editors are fed up and find something else where their editing actually counts. The article DOES NOT CHANGE. You have now got experience with cleaning many copyvios on Indian TV shows. How many times did you have to return back to the same article?
Btw, i had asked one question at the deletion review which was unanswered as the review was soon closed. Would "Barack Obama on social media" been cleared from AFC had all his tweets been mentioned in the article? Would biography of some celebrity been cleared when their daily schedule was mentioned? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]- As you predicted, the maintenance tag was removed today without explanation. I've restored it and hope the matter will continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. Inconvenient though it may be, this is how we have to deal with such problems—we can't delete a well-sourced article on a notable topic simply because it attracts problematic edits. We have various tools, procedures, and venues in place for dealing with these problems—maintenance templates and talk pages for flagging and discussing content issues; dispute resolution for settling content disputes; and warnings, blocks, bans, and page protection for preventing disruptive edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say delete, even in the 1st AfD. But i agree with the 1st AfDs result of merging with the main article. Howsoever seemingly noteworthy the show be, the quality of the article doesn't warrant separate article. I agree that such issues can be solved on discussions. Is that your conditional keep then? But who is gonna do that? I can't do that as i don't watch this show. And i don't wish to watch it for the sake of cleaning it. Are other regular editors and Keep voters gonna do that? I doubt that.
I know that AfDs are not meant for cleanup. But we have a good option of merging the encyclopedic content and shredding all trash.
(Btw, i also know that merging and redirecting doesn't really work. But i won't say how out loud here. I don't wanna leak that bitching strategy these passionate editors follow. I would hope that it works this time.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say delete, even in the 1st AfD. But i agree with the 1st AfDs result of merging with the main article. Howsoever seemingly noteworthy the show be, the quality of the article doesn't warrant separate article. I agree that such issues can be solved on discussions. Is that your conditional keep then? But who is gonna do that? I can't do that as i don't watch this show. And i don't wish to watch it for the sake of cleaning it. Are other regular editors and Keep voters gonna do that? I doubt that.
- As you predicted, the maintenance tag was removed today without explanation. I've restored it and hope the matter will continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. Inconvenient though it may be, this is how we have to deal with such problems—we can't delete a well-sourced article on a notable topic simply because it attracts problematic edits. We have various tools, procedures, and venues in place for dealing with these problems—maintenance templates and talk pages for flagging and discussing content issues; dispute resolution for settling content disputes; and warnings, blocks, bans, and page protection for preventing disruptive edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag will go in few days, without any change to the article. Then November would come and same tag will be placed as November 2012. The cycle repeats till good editors are fed up and find something else where their editing actually counts. The article DOES NOT CHANGE. You have now got experience with cleaning many copyvios on Indian TV shows. How many times did you have to return back to the same article?
- The copyright infringements no longer constitute the majority of the article; the remaining ones are already being processed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Imtitanium and Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The fancruft can simply be removed if and when a consensus is reached to do so. There's already a {{plot}} maintenance tag on the page and an associated discussion on the talk page. Anyone who agrees that the "plot" information is too long can say so on the talk page and/or boldly remove the superfluous details from the article. (Someone already tried to do this but was immediately reverted by User:Imtitanium, so perhaps it's best to establish consensus on the talk page first.) —Psychonaut (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you suggest dealing with those problems? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Clearly a notable series.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a popular reality show in India. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Opponents seem to be arguing WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT. AfD is not cleanup. I am satisfied that, with the proper improvements, this article can be made into a fine article. If you don't like the quality of the article, fix it, don't nominate it for deletion. Redfarmer (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable series and the season has already started. Ryan Vesey 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keep individual article up to the end of season and later merge with the main series. This Big Boss season 6 wiki-page is important source of entertainment for those unable to follow daily.--Sankalpdube (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Correctly said, this article is for entertainment and gossips. And welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your first edit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state clearly the gossips you have come across in this article so that everyone can discern your point of view. One more thing, How random is this that this account has only one edit and that too on the article's nomination. And coincidentally you come along and give it a thumbs-up. We really should investigate whether this account belongs to you or not, Dharma. LOL. -- I'm Titanium chat 10:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How random is this that this account has only one edit and that too on the article's nomination.
- Not the rarest thing in Wikipedia. You may find the first edit in RFA too. But, still it surprises me everytime! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gosh! That irony/sarcasm font is really needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state clearly the gossips you have come across in this article so that everyone can discern your point of view. One more thing, How random is this that this account has only one edit and that too on the article's nomination. And coincidentally you come along and give it a thumbs-up. We really should investigate whether this account belongs to you or not, Dharma. LOL. -- I'm Titanium chat 10:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Correctly said, this article is for entertainment and gossips. And welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your first edit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:02, 3 November 2012 (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.