Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 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 no consensus. Closing statement is on the talk page Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The following article is being nominated for deletion for several major factors. These include a lack of citations, containing mostly original research, and lacking little notability for existence. If the article is to remain and avoid deletion, editors must take this opportunity to discuss how to change the article's current layout and improve it. Such a suggestion should include how to redo tables on contestants that take part, listing episodes of each series of the programme, and presenting the information in a much better way. GUtt01 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for most of/all of the same reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all the series up for deletion? I don't see nothing wrong with them. So it's pointless deleting them =\ L1amw90 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I will go in-depth on what is wrong with these articles, and point out what could be done to keep these from deletion, with editors able to voice what they think, what they suggest, in order to form a general consensus on how best to deal with these problematic articles:

Lack of citations - A considerable number of articles, particularly the early ones, lack citations for the information within, including any references to the contest's results for each respective series. Except for the citation on the ratings of each series, this is a serious problem. If the articles are to remain, most notable entries of information will need to have references found.
Original Research - Much of the articles are fed with OR that is considerably inflated and thus can't be retained without sources. If the articles are to remain, various layouts of information will have to be removed; most particular will be all sections relating to Bushtucker Trails, Dingo Dollars and Star Counts.
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 - Except for where one was provided, most articles don't include an episode table listing the episodes of the series. 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 these if the articles 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) 21:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for Closure of AfD: As the nominator for this discussion, I am calling for closure of this discussion after a review off a previous AfD I was involved in concerning a similar matter, with request that no result be accepted with what was put forward by everyone who partook in this AfD, nor the articles deleted. Based on the comments of a number of editors, I feel I have done the exact say thing as I had pointed out to a nominator in the AfD I entered into. This particular AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Apprentice (UK series thirteen) - was done to provoke a deletion discussion on a series of articles for a programme because of its layout, and I myself pointed out to the nominator about WP:BEFORE in regards to their action. Although it was not appropriate, it did have the "silver lining" of editors determining what to do with the article and related articles connected to it within the discussion and prompted an eventual change of these to combat the issues. My only concerns that I like to be dealt with in independent discussions are:~

A full-on discussion on the layout of these articles, and those within other international editions, where there is at least 3 seasons or more, should be conducted over the relevant issues I raised, and a general question over two additional areas - out-of-universe viewpoint (when edited), and general interest.

A discussion over whether to divide MOS:TV into three separate Manuals of Style - 1. Television ; 2. Season ; 3. Episode

~~I would also like any other AfDs pertaining to programmes related to the original/the franchise to be suspended pending the discussion marked within #1. GUtt01 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

This is purposefully disruptive behaviour simply to make a point. If you want to raise points about formatting/style then open an RFC on it. AFD is not for formatting/style issues. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retain and tag for improvements These articles as with many in the genre of "reality television", subsist because they are covered by the general notability guidelines WP:GNG. The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I cannot see any WP:DEL-REASON that applies. Lack of article quality does not trump WP:GNG for article validity. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notability that is at issue here. It is Original Research, and a number of other problems that need dealing with; a considerable number also have a serious citation issue as well. There was a serious problem with a selection of articles covering each series of the British edition of The Apprentice, and when they were put up for AfD, it led to discussions that deemed they not be deleted, on condition that the articles receive a serious clean-up of OR from them, covering the contests in each episode, and switching out layouts towards an Episode List table arrangement. GUtt01 (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series). The nominator raises a valid point, looking through these articles all of them are summarised in the parent article anyways, the rest of can be considered WP:FANCRUFT and WP:OR and that belongs outside of Wikia or another external fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series). I didn't think I'd agree upon seeing the deletion message, but after reading the reasons mentioned above, I think all should be redirected to the main series article, providing that adequate information on each series will be added to I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series), including the contestants, ratings, episode counts and final results. The main article also needs a major cleanup, looking at it. – DarkGlow (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect will be necessary, unless its the only option. It's more a case that these articles could avoid deletion if they are changed and altered to improve them. When I look to the main article - I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series) - I think that should really not be that detailed for each series. An overview of results for the programme's history, and a brief text overview of each series would be best on those. But that's my opinion. GUtt01 (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GUtt01: I do agree that it would be too much on the main article, however, improving 19 series articles is a lot of work, so if you really want to keep them up, good luck to you! You have your work cut out for you. – DarkGlow (talk)

Redirect all - the nominator makes a convincing case. They're also magnets for trash-quality sources, e.g. The Sun, the Daily Mail and other deprecated and deeply unreliable sources. (If they could rely on Digital Spy, which is actually accepted as reliable for future telly stuff ...) It would be lovely if the articles could be saved, but they'd need actually saving - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please show the deletion POLICY based on low quality as opposed to the WP:GNG which permits the existence of an article, even those which are start class? Leaky caldron (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy says an article must be sourced to Reliable Sources which are Verifiable, with No Original Research. These idividual series articles fail all three, quite badly. Notability is satisfied for the main article - it's clearly a notable TV show - but the individual series articles fail to show individual notability from the sourcing shown for them. You may dispute that, and discussing it is what AFD is of course for - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- One way you can dispute this, is to simply look to the reasons given and determine if the articles can be edited and amended to combat the issues - for example, what information in the articles in questions could be kept, and what could be removed (i.e. anything that is more notable for fans, rather than generally encyclopedic). GUtt01 (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all unless WP:OR and WP:V is addressed in time, which can be easily the case - if both are addressed, I'll switch my vote. Meanwhile, WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and therefore has absolutely no standing whatsover on an article's fate. ミラ P 17:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラ P 17:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - I'll comment and quickly leave the scene as I have bad experience here. I've had the (dis)pleasure of going over hundreds of reality articles the past 2 years from fixing article titles to working on the reality infobox. I can say without a doubt that most of these articles are exactly as these nominated above. The editors who create them, while probably doing so in good faith, just don't care about any MoS guideline. They copy the previous season tables, input the data and move on. However, go in and try to fix something, and you'll encounter a shit storm and good luck trying to get any consensus for a change. These reality articles are mostly uncited, full of trivia and excessive "in-universe" information (why does I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 18)#Dingo Dollar challenges have a column that lists "Scones with jam & clotted cream" as a prize? Who cares? This is not a rhetorical question, I really want to know who is the person that for him this was the information he was after) and that is before even going into grammar, layout, accessibility and linking issues. This is all just to say that, while WP:OSE, in this case, the OSE is a large part of our community who just doesn't care to do better. --Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Far too many "reality TV" articles are like this: an unsourced, WP:INUNIVERSE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of "results" with no real notable content. What was done at these articles belongs at the Wiki, not on Wikipedia. Delete hard. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Notable shows always have articles for their seasons. Some reliable sources talk about the seasons, comparing their ratings to the previous seasons. [1] There are reliable sources that review each individual episode. [2] Just need to have information about each episode of the season listed in the season article as other such articles do. As far as people claiming its original research to list who was on the show and who won, that's ridiculous, you can get information from the official site about that. You can also easily do a news search for others listing the same information. AFD is not cleanup. Discuss the problems and find a solution to fixing the article. I'm doing some work on them now. Dream Focus 19:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no they don't! That is completely false!! Read MOS:TV – "season" articles should only be created if there's enough sourceable material to show that it's notable enough for a standalone article. These articles completely fail this benchmark. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can supply good enough sourcing, and remove the OR, that would be excellent - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why have not the articles been suitably tagged? Leaky caldron (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's nothing stopping you - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - David, I'm not asking for the mass-delete and my interest in the articles is, at best, passive. My concern is that more suitable alternatives have not been considered as an initial action. If the decision here is likely delete, sticking tags on 20 articles is not going to prevent that, is it?Leaky caldron (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Right - so why is this a question, then? Calling out problems fatal to an article in an AFD doesn't require first adding tags to an article - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - it will be much better to have one decent article covering the entire series than a bunch of not-so-good articles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: What about List of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! episodes? Would be safe to list only who was eliminated, plot summaries that name the challenges, and the ratings. Ooh, the ratings. ミラ P 23:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all, per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhat a joke. How can they possibly be redirected. These pages have been standing for years with no problems. It’s arguably the biggest reality show on ITV. How can the individual pages be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.221.163 (talk • contribs)
- In addition, WP:ARTICLEAGE is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussion – it's basically a valueless argument in AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm curious as to why these have been proposed for deletion, but not all the other articles on series of reality TV shows around the world. I'm no fan of reality TV, but it seems a little odd and inconsistent to propose these for deletion and not others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is usually not considered a good argument. The usual answer is "if you want those gone, go do so" - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well done for not actually reading what I wrote and noting I wasn't expressing an opinion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever heard of a "test case"?! – Plenty of us have had problems with all of these article for years (I've mentioned reality TV articles like these several times in WT:TV over the years), but didn't want to have to put up with the inevitable "pushback" from the reality TV fandom (e.g. take a look at Gonnym's !vote above...). It looks like somebody finally decided to break the logjam. I, for one, applaud this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no problem with it as long as it is applied equally to all similar series from all countries. It should also have been specified that it was a test case. And in all fairness, the notability of reality TV series in general should probably have been discussed elsewhere before a single series was taken to AfD. Because to the uninvolved editor (like me) it looks like this series has been targeted, whereas the points made could actually apply to all of them. Therefore, I think I'm going to go for Keep, as a wider discussion needs to be had. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be clear, no one is really challenging the proposition that, in general, reality TV shows are "notable". (There are some exceptions, but most reality TV shows are easily notable enough to have their own "TV series"-level articles.) What we're challenging is the proposition that "season" articles for these shows that consist of nothing but an unsourced WP:INUNIVERSE tally of "results" are somehow "notable", because they're not. This issue goes far beyond just these articles' ignoring MOS:TV – in their current form, they fail not just WP:GNG but a lot of other guidelines as well!... So, deleting this set would be a start, that hopeful leads to other WP:AfDs, or at least a massive reediting, of article sets such as these. And wider discussions have be held, in WT:TV for one, but at the time no one wanted to deal with the pushback from the reality TV fandom. So voting "keep" here strikes me as a WP:POINTy vote. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's a procedural vote, as I don't think this is the right place for this debate, which affects many similar articles. I'd happily delete the lot, but an AfD singling out one series from one country is not the place for this discussion. Note that in Britain "series" is used for both the overall series and for what Americans called seasons. I'm fully aware that the show itself is not up for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP: The pages have been active for years and not one person has had any problems with them until now. They are clear in the content in relation to contestants, elimination history and ratings information. To delete these you might as well go ahead and remove all the Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, International versions of I’m a Celebrity... pages too. Sources from newspapers are still relevant and informative too Superdry19 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's not true – plenty of us have had problems with articles like this for years. I'm glad somebody is trying to do something about these WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:INUNIVERSE messes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I also would encourage people in this discussion to take a look at the Wikipedia:Subjective importance essay – that also makes some good points directly relevant to this discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HARMLESS is not a good reason for retention. Ajf773 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all unless someone can demonstrate that the articles can be cleaned up and fixed. At this point, if people want the articles to exist, just WP:TNT them and start again. Not hard. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Whilst I do agree with some of the above points, based on the fact that a lot of other reality TV shows have individual articles for each series (including Big Brother and Love Island, I see no reason for these to be deleted unless you're also proposing to delete all of the individual series articles for other shows. Also some of these articles are about 10 years old and editors have spent a lot of time adding content to them, it would be a shame to see all of this work go to waste. Commyguy (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to discuss those articles feel free to start up a separate AfD on those. We are talking about these outlined in this AfD only. Ajf773 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All these seasons pass WP:GNG because the show is huge and so gets extensive coverage in all the press and specialist media magazines like the Radio Times. It's an institution in the UK and so the readership is high. Even season 1, which happened over 17 years ago, still gets thousands of readers every day. There are numerous spinoffs in other countries and the nomination doesn't address these. And the argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cuts both ways. What it actually says is that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". It's clearly our standard policy to maintain articles for the seasons of all these major shows. All the following are blue links and this proves it:

And that's just the big shows of this type. If you consider TV in general then there are countless pages about seasons of other shows – see category:2019 American television seasons for a long list of many examples. Articles about seasons are quite normal and so it would not be consistent to eliminate one small set for no particular reason. Andrew D. (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is not really the fact that these articles should not exist, but rather the fact that they need to have guidelines and rules about how they should be laid out. If its an article concerning a series/season of a televised talent contest, then the article for the season should consist of an overview about changes to the contest in that series (i.e. host and judging panel), no. of entries involved (an exact figure at an exact stage), along with results - both an overview of the contest, and individual results at key stages (auditions can be the tricky part, and that could be dismissed as highly problematic) - alongside ratings for episodes, and criticism and controversy created within that series/season. Unfortunately, some programmes that do hold a contest, tend to fall under reality contests, and these get trickier; and with this AfD, the nomination of these articles is because the layout of each is practically problematic. When I made this AfD, my goal was more to provoke a discussion and possibly action to determine how to correct the issues I raised than deletion, the latter being only accepted by me if there was no proper consensus on what to do. GUtt01 (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, again we are NOT talking about other shows and we don't assume season articles are notable because some other popular shows are. Ajf773 (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator clearly states that "When I made this AfD, my goal was more to provoke a discussion ... than deletion". If we're actually discussing rules for such shows then we should obviously consider all of them, not just an arbitrary selection. See also salami tactics. Andrew D. (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Also to what I mentioned above, to delete the 19 pages for the British version of the show would be a bit harsh when there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of articles with the same content for the International versions of the show plus Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, The X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing, Dancing with the Stars, Dancing on Ice I could go on but you know what I mean, it is massively unfair to target one tv show when others like it exist and pages have been around for YEARS without issue or nonesense like this. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for us to look back on history so why not have history of what is the biggest and most popular show in the UK on here. Superdry19 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do already, the history is well summarised in the parent article. We must not let an encyclopedia quickly turn into a fansite with needless details about every season/episode. For the purposes of this AfD, we are not interested in other shows, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That, I'm afraid, is short-sighted. Continually quoting OSE is pointless. Most of us are well-aware of it. And generally agree with it. However, common sense dictates that we do not look at these shows individually, but as a group. There are wider issues than just a single show. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I expected, so many "keep"s that ignore the fundamental issues.
No, we don't always have seasons articles for a TV series. Even famous ones. Even award winning ones. HBO's The Leftovers (TV series), a highly priased series, does not have a season article for any of its 3 seasons. Neither do the 5 seasons of Black Mirror nor the first 2 seasons of Twin Peaks.

These articles with violations of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N per seasons, and major WP:ACCESSABILITY issues would not pass WP:AfC and be left in draftspace until ready for mainspace. Why would these be any different?

Most of these articles are pure WP:PLOT, with zero real-world context.

It's also obvious from past experience that none of the editors voting keep will ever work on these articles - not that they have to - and relevant WikiProject editors (TV), have shown zero interest to get involved in this endless cleanup mess, which means that the state of these articles will stay the same with unverified, unsourced, incorrectly formatted content, which does a major disservice to the entire wiki. --Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we do tend to have them for reality TV series. So singling this one out makes no sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero real-world context"!? These are called "reality show"s precisely because they take place in a real-world setting. I looked in on last night's show and the high spot seemed to be that they had silkies for dinner. That's a real type of chicken which really has black skin. This really threw the inmates who generally agreed that they looked like baby T. Rex. The existence of these chickens was new to me and so was somewhat interesting. If our article about the chicken gets linked to the page about the season then that's somewhat educational and so we're good. Get real. Andrew D. (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D. - this is what happens when editors go on a deletion spree against fiction-based articles, they start to think that everything is fiction, even shows that are reality shows! FOARP (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of argument is that? No one considers reality shows as fiction. Only if the production company and broadcaster make clear it is. GUtt01 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all - Season articles need to stand on their own. They are not valid splits. It's simple enough to just not cover the content. Let fan wikis handle it if there are no sources available to establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle of WP:FAIT. There is a discussion that should be had to determine the sourcing that is available per season. For a long-running show like this which I have even heard of in the States, and a causal Google search, there is clearly sourcing that can be added, to talk about production, filming, cast selection, and reception. What does need to be worked on is the cruft - tracking contestant progress and major events of episodes is important to reality TV, but these articles frequently draw cruft to the nitty-gritty details. (This is from experience in editing articles for Survivor and The Amazing Race, among a few others) I would say that a better approach to avoid FAIT is to give editors a chance to improve one or two of these season articles, and then see if they pass muster for an article. --Masem (t) 16:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Arguments based on page quality are unconvincing as they are ultimately asking us to do clean-up and AFD is not clean-up. Arguing the notability of each page in turn is likely to be a gargantuan task as there are so many of them but rest assured that this series (which regularly receives viewership of 10 million+ in the UK, in a population of 66 million) is very notable and the events of each season are covered in reliable sources. Just to take the first season on this list (the one that aired in 2003): 1 2 3

Additionally, let me just point out that the Nom's invitation for us to go and fix these articles goes against WP:BEFORE - it is for the nominator to first assure themselves that articles are beyond fixing BEFORE bringing them to AFD. Alternatives to deletion appear not to have been considered at all. EDIT: in fact, this seems like very WP:POINT-y behaviour from the nom - nominating articles for deletion purely to make a point. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misstatement of the nominator's statements on the article. Also, claiming the nominator should have fixed the article instead isn't actually a requirement at AFD - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE clearly states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD". That is, if it can be saved by editing, then you should not take it here but edit yourself. You should not try to use WP:AFD as a way of recruiting other editors to do your editing for you. FOARP (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Per WP:GNG. All articles seems to be with the WP:GNG criteria and all seasons are notable. Also AfD is not a clean-up service BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - These articles have existed for a long time, like all other reality TV seasons, this show is huge in the UK and nineteen seasons in, still gets a large amount of viewers as well as media coverage. The voting figures are not available for the early seasons, but the same can be said for The X Factor. Keep the articles and stop removing added information. Reli source (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all - I have always found these articles to be very informative, especially with the contestants list and voting statistics. All articles meet WP:GNG and have existed for years so there is no need to either delete them or elongate the existing I'm a Celebrity Page. With the greatest of respect, I think the only thing to do here now would be for the user who nominated these articles for deletion to withdraw their nomination. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The quality of the references has been raised as an issue above. Per WP:NEXIST what matter is whether sourcing can be found in reliable sources for each article. I've been through each one and found broadsheet coverage (Telegraph, Guardian, Independent etc.) for each one. This is what the nominator should have done before bringing this to WP:AFD. Whilst the tabloids do cover this series in detail, the broadsheets also give it regular coverage, as does the BBC, ITV News etc. and the sources are easy to find. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I'm doubtful that the nominator had bothered to conduct a WP:BEFORE or understand the deletion criteria. This is one of the biggest show on British television, there are without doubt a lot of coverage on major news outlets on the programme, for example for this year, you can see coverage in the BBC, The Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, etc. all major reliable news outlet, easily satisfying WP:GNG. The nominator rationales are not based on any deletion criteria, and misunderstand the purpose of AfD, for example the notability of the article is not based on sources in the article, but based on sources that exist (therefore conducting a search per BEFORE is essential). AfD is not meant for improving article, that can be done in the talk page, therefore all the complaints about these articles are irrelevant and should not be part of the discussion in an AfD. I can see many non-notable season articles for other shows, this is not one of them, and bringing this up for deletion discussion without doing a basic search is just wasting other people's time. Hzh (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I would hope that this would be kept as they are a massive part of British Pop Culture and are a big point of interest. We have many source(s) for these articles. This is the TV Show, that come available when the air and for 28 days on relative catch-up services. Due to people adding new, false information on these articles, a edit lock is best and a episode summary could also be helpful for newer seasons(as they are available), as demonstrated in the articles for the 11th and 12th seasons respectfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.130.140 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per GNG. They may not be typical season/series articles, but they still remain valid articles. If they're poorly sourced, remove the unreliable sources and tag them as requiring further sources. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect all per nomination. 195.191.241.12 (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Blocked proxy FOARP (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - This is a known TV show (and all its series) just like Britain's Got talent, American Idol, etc. They comply with WP:GNG requirements. Dont see why these have to be deleted while the rest of similar TV shows can be kept - Jay (talk) 04:35, 3 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.