Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flavor of Love (Season 3)

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flavor of Love (season 3)

Exceptionally low-quality page, no encyclopedic content, no independent sources, notability not asserted. Episode summaries are a violation of WP:NOT, filled with original research, and particularly poorly written. Rampant WP:MOS violations. Once all unencyclopedic content is removed, there's simply nothing left here to merge. Possibly these issues could be resolved with a ground-up rewrite but I seriously doubt it. Yamla (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a bit messy, and is borderline fancruft, but it seems like a good article that can be cleaned up. It's also only borderline OR; while somebody compiled this from watching the show, that lends to citing the show itself as a source (which is exactly what somebody did). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is WP:FANCRUFT but because I'm on the fence and stuck between keep and delete, I tend towards the Keep.--Pmedema (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has information that reveals information about the show which is relevant enough to warrant existance. It would be to busy to add in the main series page. Pumapayam (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong-Keep - There are pages for specific seasons of numerous seasons of reality competition shows. What makes this one any different? Project Runway, Project Catwalk, Top Chef, I Love New York (tv series), Rock of Love, Hell's Kitchen. There's probably tons more that aren't coming to mind right now. Yes this article and many others of the sort should be rewritten, but just because something should be rewritten does not mean it should be deleted. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, season pages are a good compromise between individual episode articles vs short summaries in a list of episodes. It's a notable show. And the episodes are the primary sources. Writing summaries of the episodes is source-based research, not original research. --Pixelface (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nom. Particularly horrendous demonstration of fancruft; unencyclopedic, unnotable, unnecessary. Eusebeus (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the growing consensus that lists are the best way to handle episodes. AfD is not cleanup. If there's a concern that a seasonal list is too detailed, that's an editorial issue best handled with a merge proposal. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as preferable to having individual episode articles on such a show. Content issues are separate from AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just needs cleaned up. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong-Keep but needs some grooming. There are people who edit this page with spoilers and before the show airs with unneeded and inappropriate information. Sources are not needed for episodes of TV shows and an episode guide is definately needed. (I don't get how the elimination table is up for deletion. It's the same formate as any other elimination table.) Rafe34 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The elimination table inappropriately requires colour in violation of WP:MOS. --Yamla (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:MOS and it makes no sense. To paraphrase a quote by Mark Twain, prohibiting color tables because a color-blind person cannot see the distinctions is "like telling a grown man he can't eat a steak because a baby can't chew it." Tom Danson (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2008 (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.