- 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. postdlf ( talk) 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- List of Stars in Their Eyes episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced cruft. Laun chba ller 19:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -
UnsourcedUnecyclopedic cruft. - →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 20:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC) - Strong keep Verifiable information (and actually has a source in the article); not random trivia (if this was meant under the derogatory word 'cruft'). No original research; pure list; useful historical info, for completeness sake. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument.-- Laun chba ller 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- There's nothing "historical" about this list at all for completeness sake. - →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I always hate to see so much work go into pages like these, with all the linking and the, um, "research". But fancruft like this needs major sourcing, as people not familiar with the show must just take it at face value. — Wylie pedia 08:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Strong keep It's sourced, and surely an episode guide for a primetime show that spanned two decades is worth keeping.
Sweezely (
talk)
14:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Articles go by notability, Not how long it's been running..... -
→Davey2010→
→Talk to me!→
15:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- If this article is not notable then surely all episode/contestant lists of similar era talent shows should also be MfD (e.g. link) Sweezely ( talk) 18:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Articles go by notability, Not how long it's been running..... -
→Davey2010→
→Talk to me!→
15:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- How can you compare this tip to that article?
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--
Laun
chba
ller
22:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- The argument is not about whether you personally like the presentation, it is about the notability. This was a very popular show that is still repeated on Saturday night prime time, therefore an episode guide is equally as notable as the article I mentioned. If it can be improved, it should be improved, rather than simply deleted. Furthermore, it is only marked for deletion due to lack of sourcing, therefore please keep the argument to the validity of the sourcing and not your personal opinions of its quality. Sweezely ( talk) 18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly, and this is not notable. It is cruft.--
Laun
chba
ller
19:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see what you did there, you reiterated your opinion without offering anything to back it up. This weakens your argument. Further, you describe yourself as a "staunch inclusionist". Your words: "It's my belief that if someone has spent many hours on an article..., can back up its importance or significance and does not have a conflict of interest, then it's deserving of an article on Wikipedia." By your own rules, this article should not be deleted. What do you have against it? It has been demonstrated that it is notable, and you insist on calling it cruft despite it being sourced. So neither of those points are valid. Furthermore, if it were to be deleted, then all that would happen is that the information here would be transferred to the main article. Then it would be split because such a large page would be unnavigable. So deleting it serves no purpose. Sweezely ( talk) 22:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly, and this is not notable. It is cruft.--
Laun
chba
ller
19:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- How can you compare this tip to that article?
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--
Laun
chba
ller
22:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This is a British talk show running for sixteen years and was notable in the UK. The list helps organization and traversability of information on Wiki. Valoem talk contrib 21:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 16:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 21:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. postdlf ( talk) 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- List of Stars in Their Eyes episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced cruft. Laun chba ller 19:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -
UnsourcedUnecyclopedic cruft. - →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 20:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC) - Strong keep Verifiable information (and actually has a source in the article); not random trivia (if this was meant under the derogatory word 'cruft'). No original research; pure list; useful historical info, for completeness sake. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument.-- Laun chba ller 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- There's nothing "historical" about this list at all for completeness sake. - →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I always hate to see so much work go into pages like these, with all the linking and the, um, "research". But fancruft like this needs major sourcing, as people not familiar with the show must just take it at face value. — Wylie pedia 08:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Strong keep It's sourced, and surely an episode guide for a primetime show that spanned two decades is worth keeping.
Sweezely (
talk)
14:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Articles go by notability, Not how long it's been running..... -
→Davey2010→
→Talk to me!→
15:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- If this article is not notable then surely all episode/contestant lists of similar era talent shows should also be MfD (e.g. link) Sweezely ( talk) 18:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Articles go by notability, Not how long it's been running..... -
→Davey2010→
→Talk to me!→
15:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- How can you compare this tip to that article?
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--
Laun
chba
ller
22:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- The argument is not about whether you personally like the presentation, it is about the notability. This was a very popular show that is still repeated on Saturday night prime time, therefore an episode guide is equally as notable as the article I mentioned. If it can be improved, it should be improved, rather than simply deleted. Furthermore, it is only marked for deletion due to lack of sourcing, therefore please keep the argument to the validity of the sourcing and not your personal opinions of its quality. Sweezely ( talk) 18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly, and this is not notable. It is cruft.--
Laun
chba
ller
19:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see what you did there, you reiterated your opinion without offering anything to back it up. This weakens your argument. Further, you describe yourself as a "staunch inclusionist". Your words: "It's my belief that if someone has spent many hours on an article..., can back up its importance or significance and does not have a conflict of interest, then it's deserving of an article on Wikipedia." By your own rules, this article should not be deleted. What do you have against it? It has been demonstrated that it is notable, and you insist on calling it cruft despite it being sourced. So neither of those points are valid. Furthermore, if it were to be deleted, then all that would happen is that the information here would be transferred to the main article. Then it would be split because such a large page would be unnavigable. So deleting it serves no purpose. Sweezely ( talk) 22:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly, and this is not notable. It is cruft.--
Laun
chba
ller
19:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- How can you compare this tip to that article?
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--
Laun
chba
ller
22:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This is a British talk show running for sixteen years and was notable in the UK. The list helps organization and traversability of information on Wiki. Valoem talk contrib 21:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 16:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 21:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.