Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kändisdjungeln

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kändisdjungeln

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kändisdjungeln (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)

The article fails to focus on the programme and detail about its format, history and reception, seeming more focused on the season it ran for and the inclusion of Fan-focused Original Research. The article has not notability for existing, and should be deleted if no other solution can be given to change it out of its current arrangement. GUtt01 (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As there is only one season of the show, there is no problem.BabbaQ (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you argue in the other AfDs that the info is already in the parent article, but in this case this is the parent article. Topic is clearly notable (enough sources in article, plus things like this. Fram (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is "only" notable if it includes information on the programme, NOT JUST A SEASON OF IT!GUtt01 (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Faulty logic. There was only one season. Not a big hit in Sweden. This is the information needed. Another article in the series itself would contain one or two sentences. BabbaQ (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:BEFORE not done, subject is a WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I'm not sure if the people who talk about WP:GNG have actually read (or have been able to read) the sources; apart from the fact that most of the sources themselves are borderline RS – one press release and three brief pieces in either Aftonbladet or Expressen, notorious for their focus on gossip and clickbait headlines – they are simply notices published ahead of time, listing the participants, with no commentary on the show after it had begun broadcasting. I found one press release mentioning the name of the winner, and the charity he donated the money to, but if that's the only thing written about the show I don't see how it meets any notability criteria. The press release in the article was presented as two different sources since two different papers had printed it, and that is often a sign of enthusiastic editors having scraped the barrel of any source they can find. The show is not notable because it had notable participants (and the focus of those articles are on the participants, not on the TV show), or because it is a local version of a notable show (per WP:NOTINHERITED). It is listed in I'm_a_Celebrity...Get_Me_Out_of_Here!#International_versions, and any relevant information could be merged there. I don't see notability for a standalone article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further comment: I had never heard of the Swedish show and had only heard the title of the English-language one, and I can say that reading the article Kändisdjungeln gives me very little information. There are tables (unsourced, apparently original research) listing who won which trial and who was eliminated when, but they are very difficult to understand since jargon such as "safe" and "bushtucker" is never explained, nor is the column "Number of Stars". Since there aren't any sources talking about the show itself, those things can't be explained, and so it is essentially an article for the fans of the show. I'm guessing that the concepts are explained with sources in the article about the original show, and that is a reason to have this title redirect to that article (since we can obviously not add sources that explain a different TV show and don't mention Kändisdjungeln to the article about the Swedish version – the rules are presumably not identical, and as we can't know that, well...) --bonadea contributions talk 12:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear why this editor has decided that the Goteborgs-Posten article is a press-release. It is not marked as such, it quotes Aftonbladet (which a press-release would be unlikely to do), and it is from a WP:NEWSORG. The same goes for all the other articles that they marked "Press Releases". Please note that Google occasionally marks things as press-releases or blogs that are in fact news articles, particularly from non-English-language sources. There are numerous instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that have now been added to the article and which, given their critical nature, clearly were not press-releases. FOARP (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has argued to delete (or keep) the article based on its current state, as far as I can see, so the "no cleanup" comment doesn't address anything. (In fact, the article has been cleaned up a bit during this AfD process.) Also, who here has a conflict of interest, that they would need to use the article talk page for edit requests? Sorry, I find that reasoning rather baffling. As for Article subject falls within WP:GNG – simply repeating that it is so doesn't automagically make it so. Where is the significant coverage in independent sources? There are three press releases and two gossip type pieces published when the show was in its planning stages, about some celebrities that had been cast for it. (I was wrong in my post above; I said that there were three of the latter, but in fact the Aftonbladet piece is also a press release reprint – I'll fix that reference.) Again: there needs to be sourcing about the show itself. --bonadea contributions talk 07:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A number of new references regarding this show (a notable flop) have been found and added to the article. Given the critical nature of the coverage of the show (it describes it as a "fiasco" and a "disaster") this coverage clearly cannot be criticised for not being independent of the show. Similarly this is coverage in what appears to be reliable sources (e.g., Aftonbladet and Expressen). FOARP (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, I didn't properly read about the section regarding Nomination Closure. As there is one person stating "Delete", I can't withdraw nomination on this AfD. Hence, why my earlier Withdraw Nomination move had to be reverted by me. GUtt01 (talk) 16:37, 1 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kändisdjungeln&oldid=929673936"