Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britain's Got Talent
- 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. There are news sources verifying the existence of this [1] and editorial issues are not a reason to delete. And as below, much more information will be available in the near future so, considering the basic facts can be verified, it's not worth deleting. Trebor 10:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Britain's Got Talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article lacks a single reputable source. Plenty of speculation, some grudges from the "wronged" contestants' forum removed as unsourced, a list of contestants removed as unsourced, and frankly if we go on removing everythign that's unsourced we get... the name. Let's wait until it's rather closer to airing, shall we? Guy (Help!) 20:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Per WP:CRYSTAL. ~ Magnus animuM Brain Freeze! 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — full of speculation and article keeps being hijacked by users with an axe to grind--Speed Air Man 22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is undeniably worth including, but the problem is that the article is basically unmaintainable. It keeps filling up with rants, unsourced speculation, erroneous personal information (the original reason I found it was people complaining about their names being wrongly listed in some list of failed contestants), and is just generally an unmaintainable cesspit. If someone is willing to look after it with a good firm hand, for the indefinite future, then fine; but if not, the community's unwillingness to look after it should indicate that they really don't want to keep it. Shimgray | talk | 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- the show is a real program, and is very much notable. The fact that there have been edit wars and other problems shouldn't be solved by deletion. Perhaps it could be semi-protected? -- MisterHand 00:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Considering the success of America's Got Talent in the US there is no doubt that the subject qualifies for inclusion. According to the article, the show starts airing in less than a month. Given that this is a good basis for an article that we are going to have regardless - in less than a month - I fail to see the logic behind this nomination. --JJay 10:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per JJay and MisterHand. Given that America's Got Talent has a substantial article I think this show, which is the direct UK equivalent, is similarly deserving. The problems are solveable by means other than deletion and we should wait until the show has been on air and the article has had a chance to be developed properly before judging it.Circusandmagicfan 21:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]
- Keep. Subject is clearly notable. Edit wars and vandalism can be handled through blocking and protection. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just because it's unstable does not warrent its deletion; The American Idol articles receive much worse, after all. I also disagree with the assertion that it violates WP:CRYSTAL. The show is absolutely certain in its release (June 12th, less than a month from now) and will most certainly have more info available to it in the very near future. Perhaps some news articles can be added as refs for the time being, such as info about the appointed judges and interviews with the show's creators. María (habla conmigo) 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, consider renom if series fails to air in a reasonable time. DewiMorgan 18:13, 18 May 2007 (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.