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. Consensus is that the main article adequately covers the relevant information for this group of non-notable people. Useless redirect; hence delete. I have also IAR deleted the redirect that sparked off this AfD, as it is no longer necessary/ Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK)[edit]

List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Generally a list such as this might be notable, but the living people this list is comprised of are not. This article is causing one of the subjects distrress. Since this is relatively "unencylopedic"' we should IAR and delete.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)   little green rosetta(talk)[reply]
central scrutinizer  00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coatrack with little encyclopedic value and enormous BLP issues. This is best treated as a simple bulleted list of names in the main article, without descriptions that would make a tabloid editor blush and personal details of people who have long since moved on from the "contest" and their 15 seconds of fame. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is one of those occasions (there are plenty more) where we should ask ourselves what it is we're trying to accomplish with this beautiful project. This stuff is of no value today, and of even less value tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets GNG, as far as I can tell as the subject of multiple instances of substantial indepently-published coverage. Andy gets kudos for honesty, but GNG is the law of the land and protects the work of us all from the IDONTLIKEITs of others. Carrite (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This looks like a big case of IDONTLIKEIT and omg someone complained let's AfD it. This article has many many reliable sources for the information in it. The people described in the list voluntarily publicized their lives on the show. Over half of the paragraphs are about the show itself, which means that it does make sense as a list. Honestly, it is of value, as I guarantee you someone looks back at that season, maybe they have it recorded, and wonders who exactly was on the show. It has a purpose, meets GNG (if nothing else), therefore keep. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, everything in this list could be better on the main article for the season under a section heading, and shortened considerably. For that reason, Merge to the season's article. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Information is all present in main article now, Delete. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Just make sure that any reported personal info is from reliable sources. Pare out anything that's not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Wikipedia is not censored and while I symphasise with the person whom distress is being caused by their stint on BB, this isn't Soviet Russia and things can't be "unhappened". Also, just deleting one list of BB housemates would only cause it to get recreated to fill in the list; the Streisand effect might also be worth mentioning here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Big Brother 10 (UK). It's a list of thoroughly non-notable people with tons of fancruft details. Way way trivial, going into excessive detail beyond what any professional encyclopedia would do, even if they had our resources. Can you imagine Britannica doing such a list? I strongly objected on WP:CENSOR grounds to the removal of a single entry, but removal is appropriate if all of the others are also removed on unrelated grounds. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Britannica would or would not do is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not paper, and asking "What Would Britannica Do?" is a sure way to mediocricy. While not essential, of course, these articles are, or should- and could be, reliably sourced and proper spin-outs of the main article on each series. Are the other ten going to be deleted as well? Because deleting one, as I mentioned above, will only invoke the Streisand effect, and would set a disturbing precedent, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I relish such a disturbance, Bushranger. Seriously, I don't think these are proper spin-outs: it's trivial biographical detail most of which has nothing whatsoever to do with why they were on the show or indeed what they did on the show (which is nothing anyway). I say we set a precedent here, and to make you eat your crow you'll have to nominate all the other ones by hand. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take ketchup and Twinkle with that crow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; each of these individuals is notable for one event, the TV show. The accumulation of the same one event times something doesn't make them more notable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is supposed to be a proper encyclopedia, not a collection of Western pop culture fancruft - this kind of meaningless trivia belongs in a fan blog. (And yes, each individual one of them has only one-event notability - and we don't carry lists of everyone who has ever appeared on a TV show) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: I take the point that the particular series of the show has achieved sufficient reliable coverage for notability - just not this spin-off list of painfully unimportant personal trivia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - useless, non-encyclopedic fancruft - Alison ^❤ 08:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is an entire class of articles identical to this. The article is an off-shoot from a main parent and there are dozens of them across the entire Big Brother franchise (and quite possibly other similar reality TV shows). Typically the format is: Big_Brother_10_(UK)#Housemates - branching to the biographical stubs article here up for deletion. A decision should be taken on the entire class of articles, not only this specific article following a complaint by an alleged former contestant. Leaky Caldron 10:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Much as we might like to edit out Britain's more recent embarrassing history the reality is that the list covers a major British cultural phenomenon of the 00s. And no there isn't anything we can do about that.©Geni 12:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you not think the articles about the series themselves are sufficient to cover the cultural phenomenon? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  "sufficient" is irreverent. Given the depressingly large number of sources that cover such things there is enough sourced info to write such an article which is all that matters.©Geni 15:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we should indeed be deciding what is "sufficient" in terms of quality encyclopedic content and not just equating quantity of sources with quantity of Wikipedia content - in my opinion, an encyclopedia should be trying to resist bias towards pop culture recentism. But I accept that I seem to be in a minority on that one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The accepted method of dealing with bias in article topics is to expand coverage in other areas.©Geni 02:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree - maximum possible wordage should not be our aim - we should be expanding encyclopedic material and reducing unencyclopedic material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose delete Delete will result in redlink problems on the main article to which these bio summaries are subordinated. Merge, if anything. Leaky Caldron 12:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't delete because it will cause redlinks" doesn't stop almost any other deletion at AfD! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to /dev/null. Thincat (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is far too much detail about a (popular) TV show. I haven't found any WP policy documents about how much plot and character detail should be in TV or book articles, but this is just excessive. The fact that this is a partially scripted "reality" show really doesn't change how we should summarize it. This is vastly more detail than, for example, a season of Coronation Street. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk and cheese. CS is broadcast 5 times a week 52 weeks a year. It doesn't have "seasons" and is not in a genre comparable with a short, seasonal reality TV show. Leaky Caldron 16:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That simply reinforces what I said. This is far too much detail.Dingo1729 (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The idea of Merger is not a bad one. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; Wikipedia is not censored.--Launchballer 17:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does that apply here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the season article, do the same for any other similar "reality TV show" article. Pure fancruft, containing BLP violations and all sorts of other garbage. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the related series 10 article. While I am shocked that the negative information in the article that has been removed had been there for so long, AFD isn't the place to discuss that aspect of the article. However, I do feel that these people in the list aren't notable outside of the show and there is probably very little interest in them at all now, if any. I think we could just give basic information about the individuals, and remove the details about what they did in the house, as the important parts will be under the summary section anyway. Therefore separate lists are probably not needed, and we could do this for all 14 UK series of Big Brother. –anemoneprojectors– 21:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia has once again shown itself to be incapable of policing the content of these types of articles, to the detriment of their subjects. The contestants are already listed in the main article and there is no need for this fancruft to be recorded anywhere, so deletion is preferable to a merge. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge into the season article. Ugh. What do you do about an article where notability and verifiability aren't really an issue, but it presents POV BLP issues about a bunch of people who aren't really public figures in the legal sense? There isn't really an ideal solution, but paring it down considerably and putting it into a parent article where more eyeballs would be on it to keep problems away sure would help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have a big list of all the Apprentice candidates, quite a few have their own articles. So, if anything, we need to greatly expand the list by adding much more personal details about each of the contestants. Whether we like it or not, the very reason why programs like Big Brother are so popular is because people like to know about these things. 23:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Iblis (talk • contribs)
  • That they're popular for some reason doesn't mean we have to regurgitate the details. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is about the World as it exists, not about how we think it should be. It is up to the public to not like Big Brother anymore, then these programs will stop and then we don't have to compile these lists anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's not a diary NE Ent 16:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • We should certainly not include every last detail of the personal lives of these people, even if they can be found in the popular (tabloid) press. But some basic information about each of the contestants isn't too much, in fact Wikipedia's coverage of Big Brother would be incomplete without this information. Whether we like it or not, the whole point of Big Brother is that people participating in there expose part of their private lives. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really an argument. The last thing needed is an expansion on non-notables. Blackmane (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per Alison and Doc Mies. 2601:0:5A80:49:ACB9:C42E:4B97:B16F (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think this article is fancruft. It has reliable sources, fits notability requirements, and I think it should be included TempName1 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which notability-criteria are met? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Big Brother 10 (UK). Far too detailed list of trivia, not encyclopedic. If they made something notable during the contest, then mention what they did. You don't have to explain all their personal life details. Wikipedia is not a tabloid nor a entertainment magazine, it doesn't need to explain at length the life of every contestant in a TV contest. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't have articles on every character that ever appeared in a TV show, and a "reality" show is real people manipulated and edited into revenue producing drama for the producers of the show. We can have adequate encyclopedic coverage of the show with a single article without a fancruft split out page. We have plausible evidence this is causing a real person some distress, and it's not going to cost hurt our reputation as an encyclopedia if this isn't here. I don't see why providing a tremendous service to the world -- the best compilation of information in the history of the world -- has to be incompatible with compassion. NE Ent 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Modify the article On balance, I think it helpful to use a different principle; since we're an encyclopedia, I think it wrong to cater to the publicity hungry in this or any other part of Wikipedia. We should either include all the candidates, or none of them, and treat them in the same manner. We should compromise, by omitting the last names and other personal information, and just discuss the actions on the show. Unfortunately, to a considerable extent such shows are notable because the people have a real life; I suppose that's the main point of the genre. I think everyone is judging here by what they thing of the social or moral value of the genre. I despise it, but I still think it best to take an intermediate position. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I assume anything that is related to the actual show back is already in the main article. Leave out the unrelated tabloid facts. I see no purpose, for example, for giving their current address, as that is of no encyclopedic value for a contestant on a reality TV show. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe there are similar articles on all the previous Big Brother series. Keep or delete them all, they must be treated all the same, and the range of information about the individual participants must be all the same, one article must not be deleted because one person who is mentioned does not like it, and that person's information must not be different in character from the information given for the other contestants - ie if it is decided to delete the dob, occupation, location of the person who complained then such information must also be deleted from all the other contestants' information.Smeat75 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Depending on how this one pans out, those may or may not need to be AFD'd as well. Blackmane (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. There may be one or two contestants that have gone on to other things that warrant a stand alone article, which would be subject to our standard policies on WP:N/V/BLP, but the list itself is superfluous for a variety of reasons, as is some of the content. That other lists exist only demonstrates a need to review them at the conclusion of this AfD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I agree too - this one should be a good test case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite the existence of reliable sources for the information, these people are only known for their appearance on the show. Beyond that, they are not notable for any other reason. Per WP:BLP1E all of them fall short of notablity. Blackmane (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And BLP1E is exactly why they're in a list instead of individual articles; lists are used for people and things who are notable as a group (which these are) but not notable individually (which they aren't). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and merge anything that isn't cruft to the main article. It's an unnecessary spinout. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Falls under BLP1E if nothing else; most of these people aren't notable for anything else. Even if you count them as notable for being on the show, the list includes random facts about their lives that have nothing to do with the show. While we include such detail for fictional characters, the fact that real people are involved raises BLP considerations. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See reply above to Blackmane re BLP1E. Absolutely cruft should be trimmed; deletion? Perhaps not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E requires making an article about the event. To satisfy BLP1E you can't have a list of people; a list of people isn't an article about the event. Furthermore, the event "person X appears on Big Brother" isn't notable enough to be an article about an event anyway. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E requires making an article about the event. Er...there is an article about the event: Big Brother 10 (UK). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not trying to delete that article, we're trying to delete this one. This one should be removed, since it's not an article about the event, and Big Brother 10 (UK) can be kept.

Also, I'm not convinced that the event is the entire program, rather than "person X's appearance on the program". Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A group of people notable for one event, about which we already have an article, does not warrant a list article about the group - essentially a collection of little stubs, cruft magnets, about 1E people. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - reality show contestants are generally not celebrities or public figures. Unless they go on to become public figures or have other acting jobs (like, say, some of the Survivor contestants), we don't need extensive bios of them. --B (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - (and merge into Big Brother 10 (UK)). Single-event people; the TV show's article already lists them. --Noleander (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge any BLP violations should be removed, any insignificant detail should be removed. I have no idea what constitutes significant detail in this context, however we have subject matter experts who curate these pages, and of course more BLP experts than you can shake a stick at. Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep or Merge -- This was a high profile format. I suspect that merging will make the series article too long, so that there is merit in having this as a separate list article. A few winners have gone on to be separately notable, but a split, where each contestant got an article, inevitably be followed by these being merged back here; hence we should keep it in some form. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Covered adequately in the article on the show. --Michig (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A group of people only known for one event. It's basically amounts to being just a list of non-notable people. Big_Brother_10_(UK)#Housemates already covers more than what needs to be mentioned so no merge required. Implausible redirect name, there is no need to keep the redirect either. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2013 (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.