Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GUtt01 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 3)

(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 season, bar the 3rd and 7th. 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; the table in the 8th with the pictures should be remade to match the others, minus the pictures, while those in the 3rd and 7th have to be dealt with as well.
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. The 3rd and 8th also have no infobox for these respective seasons, unlike the other existing articles for the programme.
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 to remain.
Ratings Tables - Only the 10th season up to the 13th have such a table. And those from the 11th to the 13th are designed with dividers which are not acceptable. These tables must be linear and not feature dividers at all and need to be amended.

Additionally, none of the seasons before the 3rd, and between the 3rd and 7th are covered. Their absence will raise questions over whether the nominated articles should remain or not. In all, these issues require 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 be that the articles will be facing possible deletion. GUtt01 (talk) 10:10, 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) 10:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are serious problems with this article and those bundled within its AfD, and the underlining argument for this AfD's creation can be found here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1). The fact that articles for some of the seasons already been broadcast are missing, adds to the argument against why these should be kept. GUtt01 (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - 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 (✉) 11:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Nom indicates WP:BEFORE not done, as AussieLegend points out this is not a proper AFD but instead an invitation to just go and fix page-quality issues. FOARP (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Per WP:GNG. This is within the WP:GNG criteria. Mass nominations are also not a good way to handle a clean up request.BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 29 November 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.