Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16)

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 Delete its a complex issue I'll give as detailed an explanation as possible. This discussion centered around notability based on being verified by reliable sources, what these three policies say is that for a subject to be notable the information must verifiable from multiple independent sources. The sourcing that was used in the article in its current form(at deletion) were MTV sources including a blog, MTV has a financial stake in the series and therefore its fails as being independent. The other alternative source Vevmo was discussed at Wikipedia:V/N#Vevmo where the discussion was clear that because there isnt editorial oversight the site does meet our policies on verfiablility and reliability.
Noting that in closing this afd I reviewed the discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_10, Wikipedia:V/N#Vevmo, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_The_Duel_II and the article talk page, content of each of these discussions where raised in the course of this discussion. Gnangarra 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is at Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16), it may not show up correctly here due to the slash in the title. This article is basically a recreation of Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II, which was deleted (see AfD here) for lack of reliable sources. I attempted to get it speedily deleted based on that criterion but an admin declined it on the basis that it "cites sources". Another editor attempted WP:PROD saying the "Entire thing seems to be sourced from rumors on blogs and the like" but that was contested. This article needs to be deleted because there are no reliable sources to support the information in it i.e. there is nothing about this season from the web sites of MTV, Bunim/Murray, IMDb, etc., and there is no acceptable version in the history to revert to as the information comes solely from sources that have not been established to be reliable Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep All Real World/Road Rules Challenges are considered noteworthy and this one is not an exception. Today, July 5th on MTV during The Real World: Hollywood marathon it was mentioned that Paula Meronek would be heading to a challenge after filming her side commentary for the show. If it is stated on MTV that there is going to be a challenge, then there is going to be a challenge (which would be the 16th in the series, and logically where the name of this article is derived.) This is in support of the sources provided that do state there is a challenge currently filming in Panama. There is also a photograph of the cast from an MTV talent coordinator in Panama that makes it easy to verify who is attending the challenge. We can also see Paula which lends credence to the photograph, being we know she is on the challenge from the previously mentioned broadcast. Each cast member in the picture is recognizable and can be matched to their iamonmtv.com profiles (an MTV Networks web property) if needed for verifiability. The fact that MTV makes mention of the challenge in a "Coralvision" episode (which is what the marathon was called) in collaboration with the cast picture and the historical track record of the source Vevmo in this genre is reason enough to keep the article while it is expanded and improved. The cast returns from Panama on July 11th which means that more information will be forthcoming. Are we really in that much of a hurry? I don't think that there is an argument to be made here about the notability, so deletion would not be the right step no matter the consensus. A template requesting better sourcing would probably be the correct route to take, which Latish redone did place on this article (along with making a variety of copy edits) before things got personal and he nominated the article for deletion. The previous AFD discussion was not much of a discussion at all and at that time there was not a photograph, the mention of the challenge on MTV or the mention of the challenge from the casting agency (MM Agency) who represents the people attending. Putting all these factors together lays a clear path in my opinion for keeping and the article and making it better.Zredsox (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not suggested that the new season is not notable. Deletion would be inappropriate if there were reliable sources to cite. But there aren't any. There aren't any now, and if there are reliable sources later, then the article can be recreated later. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are in agreement that the season is notable then I think that we are on our way to arriving at a consensus to Keep. No matter what was arrived at in the past, if everyone here can agree the article meets the requirement for notability then it is a "no-brainer" that we should move forward with making every available attempt to improve the article within a reasonable time frame. Zredsox (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have not addressed the reliability of the sources. I have attempted to find reliable sources and have not found any, and other editors have probably done the same. If you would like for the article to satisfy the Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria, the article needs to cite those sources. Articles about past seasons were not deleted despite the lack of citations, because there are reliable sources available to cite. That is not the case with this season. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know how much more verifiable we need to get than color photography, but we have already gone 12 rounds on this on another page so obviously we are not going to reach a consensus. However, for those without a personal stake in the outcome of this AFD discussion, I think that a photo of the cast is an excellent point of verifiable documentation as to the participants of this challenge and in combination with the mention on MTV gives us enough material to at least have a page about the challenge with the cast members in the photo.Zredsox (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW: As soon as MTV puts up the "Coralvision" marathon videos on MTV.com I will be sure to cite the appropriate one within the article that makes mention of the challenge, which I think will be a big step in the right direction to alleviating your concerns about sourcing. MTV would seem to be unimpeachable when it comes to its own content (as a source.)Zredsox (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And until MTV puts up that video then this article needs to be deleted. Also, even if MTV does put up that video this article can only have content that is supported by the video or another reliable source, i.e. if the video does not tell who the cast members are then you cannot have a cast list in the article, etc. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC
          • Just because MTV has not yet posted the marathon online does not mean it did not occur. We could use TV Guide to prove that and I am sure a few hundred thousand people could vouch. A mainstream cable television show's content doesn't have to be online for it to be considered verifiable. As for your second point, I agree. No matter what, the article should be kept in some capacity, even if that is a much diminished one.Zredsox (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You don't have to argue about whether a TV show said something or not; that is not the issue here. If you would like to use the TV show as a source then please cite it in the article. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the editor who proposed deletion before, I support this listing for deletion. The article lacks reliable sources. --Jenny 01:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the sources do need to be expanded, the article is noteworthy like the Fifteen Challenges that preceded it, which from what I understand would supersede the need for immediate deletion, but rather require that the article be improved by the community. Zredsox (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To write an article, we would need some verifiable information. --Jenny 09:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
        • Unless we are trying to be so haughty with the rules that we are forgetting common sense, the picture of the cast (as I have mentioned a number of times) is clear verification as to the participants in this challenge, and MTV's mention of the challenge is clear verification of its existence. If you do not feel comfortable with the other information on the page, feel free to delete that information - but these two facts (cast members present and existence of 16th challenge) would seem quite apparent to anyone looking at this in an unbiased fashion. If we want to go as far as to strip the article down to: MTV is having a 16th challenge (the end.) - so be it - but this article is notable as we all agree, and it should not be deleted.Zredsox (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is the provenance of this purported cast picture? What does it verify? --Jenny 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have completed my vigorous defense of Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) and don't suspect that going in circles here is going to change your well established opinion on the matter. I think we should stick to the areas of consensus, which is that the article is notable and that the challenge exists - and build the sources and context from the ground up rather then delete this article of cultural significance. I know you are being coy with the photo and that is your prerogative, but I don't think it is going to help us work toward a solution and make this a better article (which I think we can all agree is the goal.)Zredsox (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry I must have missed something. Where did we establish that season 16 exists? --Jenny 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The airing of the 11th Episode of The Real World: Hollywood yesterday. It airs again on Wednesday afternoon. The challenge was brought up by Host Coral Smith, along with Paula Meronek's participation in it. I expect that MTV will archive the episode online, but I am not 100% sure as I do not see it of yet. I tried my best to state that in the article, but I am not sure as to the best way to source what occurred on a cable television show. Any help would be appreciated.Zredsox (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well that's some progress. Now is anything concrete known, from reliable sources, about this proposed new series? --Jenny 17:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. L0b0t (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it passes this test: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This challenge is to take place. It was announced on MTV that there would be another challenge. I am relatively new, but isn't it considered uncouth to post links as reasons for deletion without a substantive argument to go along with those links? Zredsox (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The argument is that the "Article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS". That is the argument. Also, if the event is "almost certain to take place" then why is there no citation of a reliable source saying so? --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I said, I am not sure how to cite a cable television show as it is not like I can direct a hyperlink to it. I have pointed out the name, when it aired,the content of what was said and when it will air again (above.) If you could assist me in adding it to the article in an appropriate manner, I would appreciate it. Thanks!. Zredsox (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nobody said that a citation had to include a hyperlink. Not all sources are Internet sources. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources. Note that the page says "If you don't know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly." As for how to cite a TV episode, you can use the template {{cite episode}} for example. There are citations of TV episodes on The Gauntlet 3 page if you need examples of usage. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks. That should do it. I appreciate the help.Zredsox (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a recreation and give Zredsox a final warning for disrupting Wikipedia. Not only has this been deleted before in the AfD listed above, he then recreated it as Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008 (with the same sources as the current one), which was G4 speedied. The DRV for that one (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 10) supported the deletion, upon which zredsox went on to nominate the other Road Rules Challenge articles as a WP:POINT violation. He now recreated this article again, with again a different title but the same sources as before... Since we can't salt it (he uses different titles each time), we should just block this editor if he or she continues like this. Fram (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural note: Zredsox (talk · contribs) did not create this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.43.13 (talk) — 24.163.43.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Comment This article was created by a SPA, which has not posted since Zredsox started working on the article, at least raising a reasonable question. Townlake (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • At first glance Sims2man2008 (talk · contribs) may seem like an SPA, but if you look closer at the user talk page you can see they have been involved in other articles previous to creating this one. An administrator should be able to compare the IP addresses and put to rest any innuendo. It doesn't make sense to taint a discussion about verifiability with accusations that are not verified. 24.163.43.13 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — 24.163.43.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • All I'm saying is it's a reasonable question. Townlake (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I did not create this article. No, I did not create the first article that was deleted either. Yes, I took the time to make major improvements to both articles including adding tables, content and copy editing. Both were initially listed as stubs when I ran into them with the first already in AFD and without a single source before I started rewriting it. As for this one, I assumed when I saw Latish redone add a "verify" template to the article that he was requesting community action to make the article better, so I became involved. Yes, this article has more sourcing than the first incarnation including a photograph of the cast, a link to a casting agency statement that covers the topic and a citation from an episode of The Real World (that were not present in the original.) Zredsox (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even though User:Zredsox did not create this article, I think that the point User:Fram is trying to make is that User:Zredsox's revisions to the article brought the article to essentially the same state as the article deleted at AfD. When I put the "verify" template in the original stub article I was expecting verification by reliable sources. Zredsox simply added the same Vevmo reference from the last article, which is why this article really should have been speedy-deleted under G4. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article history does not support your argument as Vevmo was listed as source previous to zredsox becoming involved. 24.163.43.13 (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 24.163.43.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
          • Prior to Zredsox's involvement this article was a stub with a single Vevmo reference. Zredsox's edits significantly expanded the article to non-stub status, but added further Vevmo references and a few other references that cite Vevmo themselves or are otherwise unreliable. So actually the article history does support my argument - that Zredsox brought the article into the same state as the previously deleted article. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 01:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies to Zredsox, he did not create this article. The rest of my arguments stay the same though. Fram (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We Have turned this articale into an Edit War could we just come to a compramise--Spiderman2351 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Spiderman2351[reply]

  • Yes. Only recreate the article when reliable independent sources, like newspapers or print magazines, have discussed this season at some length. Until that happens, you (plural) don't create the article. After this has happened, we don't delete it again. Fram (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No that is not a comprimise we dont want it deleted. We know that who is going to be on the challenge and who is on the challenge and where it will be held and what it will be like so i now think we got enough for a weak keep
  • Delete. I've changed my mind. I think the Vevmo material is probably accurate based on their general reputation, which I've learned a bit about by digging around some. However, all the material here is either from Vevmo or attributes its information to Vevmo, and I really don't feel comfortable with that. It's good enough to back up other sources but not good enough on its own: it's an anonymous-posting site with no editorial oversight, and authors don't even use their real names. In other words, Vevmo publishes rumors and tip-offs: they may usually be correct, but nonetheless Wikipedia should not be in the business of writing encyclopedia articles based only on such things. Re-create the article when material from a greater variety of sources becomes available: it will eventually. I would not be sad if Wikipedia had to wait until the show actually airs. Mangojuicetalk 14:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stub Neutral Updated below The only reliable source used in this article is the Coralvision citation in the lead, which I think is enough to avoid deletion. Everything else is Vevmo or a source that freely states it mixes its information with Vevmo's. That reporting can easily be restored once reliable sources report that information. In the meantime, keep the lead, but remove everything else for now - bearing in mind that within the next couple weeks, there should be sources that've picked up accurate AND reliable casting info and such if I understand the timeline correctly. Townlake (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • i would be fine with that a stub would be fine--Spiderman2351 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Spidermn2351[reply]
      • Townlake: You mean the "existence of the upcoming season confirmed by..." reference? There's no content in it. It doesn't even confirm the correct title. I don't see how that can be a basis for an article, even temporarily. Mangojuicetalk 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point well taken. I just went to the MTV site trying to find the Coralvision ep, and came up empty. Then I figured there must be chatter about the announcement online... but the only search engine returns were Vevmo and Vevmo-related. Changing opinion to Neutral pending potential citation of verifiable info by others. Townlake (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show announced on MTV at the end of Real World Hollywood Finale. AFD discussion should done. It is called 'The Island' and I am sure it will be everywhere in a few hours. Zredsox (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources except a blog post which references another blog. When it airs, or when reliable sources start talking about it, then it will make a reasonable article, but until then WP:CRYSTAL needs to apply. Orpheus (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment It seems to me that those who are (over?)involved with this issue would be happier if they spent their time on improving less ... speculative articles. Eventually the air date will roll around, sources will become available, and this article can be recreated with accurate content and a lack of tags like TBA, TBD, TBcorrected, and TBwhoops, that was completely wrong". Not personal criticism of anyone, just a general observation. Orpheus (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stub This is good enough for me. But I do think the cast information and other specifics need to be truncated until there's more official information available. Townlake (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stub WOW! These "discussions" never fail to get heated! This article can stay because MTV posted the trailer on their website! It confirms the name, The Island, the location, Panama, and that its airing this fall. Some cast members are seen in the video, but I think that the cast list can be deleted until MTV puts up the official webpage for this TV show. I am not so savy with citations so I'll leave it up to you more experienced users to include this citation and hopefully everyone can now just get along. EliRykellm (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though an obviously reliable source has been introduced during this AfD discussion period, I don't think that reliable sources give us enough info to write an article, just to add this season to the list at Real World/Road Rules Challenge. If someone wants to write this article, I still think it would be easier to just delete this article and start over, just to make sure we're only using the reliable sources to write the article. Though I would accept keeping the article and removing all the unsourced content. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 02:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LATISH we no that you want the article deleted but its mot going to happen we have a reliable source and thats all wee will need––Spiderman2351 (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Spiderman2351[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/Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge_(season_16)&oldid=1138286464"