Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 1)

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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GUtt01 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 1)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The following article is one of six being nominated for deletion; the other five include:

Reasons for these include:

Original Research - Much of the articles are fed with OR that is considerably inflated, and mainly would be relevant to fans of the programme, and thus can't be retained. If the articles are to remain, various layouts of information will have to be removed; most particular will be all sections relating to Trails, and special challenges.
Difficult Results tables - We got two table in use detailing the results of the contest for each series. One is simple and efficient, detailing each celebrity that partook in the series, their most notable work, and the result of their performance. The other is more complicated, use too many colours, and sees to have a split in it detailing elimination of celebrities. While the second's only notable factor is the voting results, it's clearly problematic. The only solution I can suggest is removing the second table, and placing any citations linked to results into the first table; voting results may be retained, but only if there is a general idea of how to do so, otherwise they will have to go.
No Episode Table - Articles don't include an episode table listing the episodes of the seasons. If the articles are to remain, such an episode list must be included; short sums of the episode should also be written out, detailing a brief summary of events covered in the episode.
Leads - These will have to be amended and cleaned up, as they really could do with improving.
Existing References - Any references from sources deemed unreliable will need to be removed. Editors should double-check all those used in the articles and remove those not valid; any for fan-based items will not be relevant are to remain.

If editors can determine how best to deal with the issues I have pointed out, and figure out what to do with the articles in order to rectify the problems, then they could avoid deletion. But this will acquire an effort by editors to make certain to combat the issues and clean up the articles in question. If nothing is considered, it will be most likely that the articles will be facing possible deletion. GUtt01 (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, see my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Je suis une célébrité, sortez-moi de là ! (series 1). Fram (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1) for the underlining argument for this AfD GUtt01 (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - These are all well referenced articles. There may be some OR that needs to be fixed but AfD is not for cleanup.

it will be most likely that the articles will be facing possible deletion. - They already are nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No - "it will be most likely that the articles will be facing possible deletion" - means that that is a possibility if the consensus on the articles does not make suggestions on how to deal with them. If anyone suggest KEEP, they've got to understand one thing: Information that would only sate Fans and is purely OR cannot be included. I should also point out my decision to conduct an AfD is to provoke discussion on how to deal with the issues raised, not to simply put them out for deletion (that is the only action if nothing is done to deal with the problems). One of the more key issues these articles have is they list extensive breakdowns of the seasons regarding there tasks, a factor that is pure OR and has little to non-existant sourcing. To simply put them in as a major problem, because who is going to want to know this other than those who are fans of the programme? And the table being used to cover results and eliminations is so complicated and complex - what kind of editor thought that was going to be useful? It's excessive and overinflated. GUtt01 (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for provoking discussion on how to deal with article content. WP:BEFORE C.1. clearly states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If the purpose of this AfD is simply to promote discussion about how to deal with article content, then it should be procedurally closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hear what others have to say first before simply closing it. The AfD that is ongoing over the season article for the British original has shown a split opinion on the matter, though a number have raised concerns regarding these type of articles for these types of programmes and the style and layout they facilitate. I do believe that if there is a general consensus for cleanup, then the appropriate template for it should be added to these articles when this AfD is closed. GUtt01 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE - The British programme has other issues that don't affect this AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look between the more recent season articles for the Australian edition and then those of the British edition. Note that despite some differences, there is a similarity in layout. Arguing WP:OSE is not a reasonable point because that can cut both ways. GUtt01 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Layout is an article content issue which, as has been stated here and elsewhere, is not what AfD is about. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Nom indicates WP:BEFORE not done, AFD is not clean-up, articles appear referenced. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per FOARP. Bookscale (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issues here are around article cleanup, not about them failing notabilty. WP:SOFIXIT! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - AfD is not a clean-up service. Clearly covers the WP:GNG criteria. BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as per FOARP. Also, the Australian articles are much more clear and have more reliable sources than the British version. It seems all articles fit within Notability criteria and most problems surrounding WP:OR can be easily fixed by editors -Happily888 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - I have previously worked on adding suitable references to these articles (if sporadically). I am also willing to help create episode tables if I can find reliable references for the relevant information. I would rather see these articles cleaned up to an agreed standard (even if some information is removed) before having them deleted entirely. Perhaps WP:WPTV and/or the Reality television task force can help us come up with an standard article structure that deals with the issues these articles face? --Reader781 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2019 (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.