This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, how do I do that then? -- 193.61.240.43 ( talk) 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
92.20.207.49 ( talk) 02:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Have we got an article set up consisting of the candidates for this series, as has been done for every other series? GUtt01 ( talk) 07:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Could we mention the "Siimon" pichboard. Lord Sugar hated it's lackluster image, spelling error, grammar error, poor logo and implosive spirit. 79.77.205.157 ( talk) 01:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It is seen here-. [1] Trish pt7 ( talk) 02:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Where did the section 'Criticism and Controversy' go? Did it get deleted, and if so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.9.28 ( talk) 14:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like some bloke hid it away using 'hidden text', meaning that it don't [sic!] show in the article. I'll probably have to create a wikipedia account in order to access the edit page and see his reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.190.234 ( talk) 23:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
There are a few things to consider, firstly, whether or not there is a reliable source. The Sun, The Express, The Mirror, The Star, and The Daily Mail, and all such tabloid newspapers which are almost all responsible for the so-called 'controversies', are not suitable / reliable sources. WP:NEWSORG states "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip", and WP:QS states that sources "that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion ... are not suitable sources for contentious claims" (contentious is defined as "causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial"). These newspapers (and websites) are all well-known to be perfect examples of this, and many WikiProjects refuse to accept them as sources for this reason. I've not got the time now, but at some point I will have a look at WP:INDEPENDENT to see what it says on the matter. These so-called 'controversies' are perfect examples of contentious claims, which breaks Wikipedia's rules on notability.
WP:SENSATION is very clear that sensationalist tabloid journalism is "a poor basis for an encyclopedia article", and "Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip", which is exactly what all of this is. WP:NOTSCANDAL (in particular, sections 2 and 3) further reinforces that. These alone are enough to get rid of almost all of these so-called 'controversies' from each season's page. That also brings to my attention that it is content about living people, namely the contestants, so we are supposed to be very strict about what is said. It must be relevant and not attack or deliberately ruin the reputation of a person (which tabloids are well-known for doing). Complete information can be seen at WP:ALIVE, which applies "when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page".
Finally, relevance has to be considered. Although this is not an official policy or guideline, it is nonetheless important that all information on these pages is relevant. The vast majority of the so-called 'controversies' have absolutely no bearing to the season as a whole. It very rarely affects the content (including the outcome) or broadcasting of the television program, and most of the time people who don't read tabloid news will not be aware of any 'controversy' whatsoever.
It seems clear to me that to be included in the article, something must genuinely affect the content or broadcasting, and having been reported in a reliable source (preferably several), such as BBC News.
So for this reason, this section will remain hidden until there is information has a genuine impact on the show in terms of it being either criticism against it, or controversy that is caused by it. I have already made the effort to clean up such sections in other series as a result of seeing what this Wikipedian replied to my question. GUtt01 ( talk) 22:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It's consistent and reasonable, yet I'd like to add some points to the bigger picture:
Has anyone found anything that conforms to Wikipedia's policies, without breaking them, such as WP:ALIVE, WP:NEWSORG and WP:NOTSCANDAL, per chance? Because if nothing is found, then I'll go ahead and delete that section, within the HIDDEN TXT it was put into. GUtt01 ( talk) 11:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I implemented a new style performance chart, however this edit was immediately reversed with no discussion started. I have started one at Talk:The Apprentice (UK series fourteen)#New performance chart. Sr88, talk. 22:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
As there's been continued edit warring between myself and others I figured I'd save another day of reverting and come here-
I don't object to the whole episode sections being replaced with tables - these sections are over-detailed and so I agree with these being replaced by a table,
However what I do object to is the whole lot being replaced by the table below with no episode summaries, It's common that with all TV programme's there's always short and concise episode summaries,
No. overall |
No. in series | Title | Original air date | UK viewers (millions) |
---|---|---|---|---|
145 | 1 | "Burgers" [1] | 4 October 2017 | 6.67 |
146 | 2 | "Hotel Redesign" [2] | 11 October 2017 | 7.10 |
References
I also agree that the sections fail OR and others but in my eyes everything should be condensed like the article at
The Apprentice (UK series one)
"Dave.... Why don't you do it then?" - Easier said than done, I'd mess it up more than anything so would prefer leaving it to someone more competent but at the same time I object to the episode summaries being removed,
Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk 00:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, how do I do that then? -- 193.61.240.43 ( talk) 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
92.20.207.49 ( talk) 02:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Have we got an article set up consisting of the candidates for this series, as has been done for every other series? GUtt01 ( talk) 07:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Could we mention the "Siimon" pichboard. Lord Sugar hated it's lackluster image, spelling error, grammar error, poor logo and implosive spirit. 79.77.205.157 ( talk) 01:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It is seen here-. [1] Trish pt7 ( talk) 02:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Where did the section 'Criticism and Controversy' go? Did it get deleted, and if so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.9.28 ( talk) 14:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like some bloke hid it away using 'hidden text', meaning that it don't [sic!] show in the article. I'll probably have to create a wikipedia account in order to access the edit page and see his reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.190.234 ( talk) 23:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
There are a few things to consider, firstly, whether or not there is a reliable source. The Sun, The Express, The Mirror, The Star, and The Daily Mail, and all such tabloid newspapers which are almost all responsible for the so-called 'controversies', are not suitable / reliable sources. WP:NEWSORG states "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip", and WP:QS states that sources "that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion ... are not suitable sources for contentious claims" (contentious is defined as "causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial"). These newspapers (and websites) are all well-known to be perfect examples of this, and many WikiProjects refuse to accept them as sources for this reason. I've not got the time now, but at some point I will have a look at WP:INDEPENDENT to see what it says on the matter. These so-called 'controversies' are perfect examples of contentious claims, which breaks Wikipedia's rules on notability.
WP:SENSATION is very clear that sensationalist tabloid journalism is "a poor basis for an encyclopedia article", and "Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip", which is exactly what all of this is. WP:NOTSCANDAL (in particular, sections 2 and 3) further reinforces that. These alone are enough to get rid of almost all of these so-called 'controversies' from each season's page. That also brings to my attention that it is content about living people, namely the contestants, so we are supposed to be very strict about what is said. It must be relevant and not attack or deliberately ruin the reputation of a person (which tabloids are well-known for doing). Complete information can be seen at WP:ALIVE, which applies "when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page".
Finally, relevance has to be considered. Although this is not an official policy or guideline, it is nonetheless important that all information on these pages is relevant. The vast majority of the so-called 'controversies' have absolutely no bearing to the season as a whole. It very rarely affects the content (including the outcome) or broadcasting of the television program, and most of the time people who don't read tabloid news will not be aware of any 'controversy' whatsoever.
It seems clear to me that to be included in the article, something must genuinely affect the content or broadcasting, and having been reported in a reliable source (preferably several), such as BBC News.
So for this reason, this section will remain hidden until there is information has a genuine impact on the show in terms of it being either criticism against it, or controversy that is caused by it. I have already made the effort to clean up such sections in other series as a result of seeing what this Wikipedian replied to my question. GUtt01 ( talk) 22:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It's consistent and reasonable, yet I'd like to add some points to the bigger picture:
Has anyone found anything that conforms to Wikipedia's policies, without breaking them, such as WP:ALIVE, WP:NEWSORG and WP:NOTSCANDAL, per chance? Because if nothing is found, then I'll go ahead and delete that section, within the HIDDEN TXT it was put into. GUtt01 ( talk) 11:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I implemented a new style performance chart, however this edit was immediately reversed with no discussion started. I have started one at Talk:The Apprentice (UK series fourteen)#New performance chart. Sr88, talk. 22:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
As there's been continued edit warring between myself and others I figured I'd save another day of reverting and come here-
I don't object to the whole episode sections being replaced with tables - these sections are over-detailed and so I agree with these being replaced by a table,
However what I do object to is the whole lot being replaced by the table below with no episode summaries, It's common that with all TV programme's there's always short and concise episode summaries,
No. overall |
No. in series | Title | Original air date | UK viewers (millions) |
---|---|---|---|---|
145 | 1 | "Burgers" [1] | 4 October 2017 | 6.67 |
146 | 2 | "Hotel Redesign" [2] | 11 October 2017 | 7.10 |
References
I also agree that the sections fail OR and others but in my eyes everything should be condensed like the article at
The Apprentice (UK series one)
"Dave.... Why don't you do it then?" - Easier said than done, I'd mess it up more than anything so would prefer leaving it to someone more competent but at the same time I object to the episode summaries being removed,
Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk 00:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)