Deletion of List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)

Comment: ec) There, as far as I know, List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2008 series)|there are lists for every season of Australian Big Brother. Meets  and  (by means of the Big Brother UK website), and theres been precedent set before with every other Big Brother contestant list, so this article deserves to stay
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:RS)

Comment: more than being just a list it is an unnecessary content fork. I doubt Benazir, Sree or Cairon will ever do anything notable, and if they do then a separate article for individual housemates (like the winner gets) would be more appropriate. Kenneth spent 6 days in the house, other than his entrance and exit he did nothing of note. This is simply a magnet for trivia and BLP violations, and all the information can be covered in the main article. As for previous years, once the information is trimmed and incorporated back in to the main articles then they can be deleted as well. The !Keep votes seem to be leaning heavily on |other crap and |it being useful, however without the main article this page would not meet the bar for |notability. We used to have separate Summary pages but they were deleted and the information put back, the same principal applies here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:ITSUSEFUL||WP:N)

Comment: its worth noting that  suggests an article greater than 60KB should be split. The main BB 2009 article is 69KB with the housemates section, so thus this is a valid split
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZE)

Comment: the list is fine. It's well-sourced and well written. It is a much better reference point than Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates is. While I do acknowledge that the it does contain small amounts of trivia, it does no harm and many editors work very hard to keep extremely trivial and irrelevant comments off the list. As a side note,  isn't even policy, so I'm taking it with discretion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: there's a strong and reasonable precedent for housemate lists as separate articles in previous years - this is a reasonable compromise to guard against individual crufty articles on each and every housemate. While I agree that the information ''can'' be presented as part of the series's main article, if previous years articles are anything to go by there ends up being quite a lot of sourced coverage; and the housemates list becomes a very valid article split under |summary style. I don't see a compelling reason that this series should be any different - the main article is already rather long
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)

Comment: Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates is a total unreadable mess, and looks to only have been puffed up to that size as a breaching exercise for this Afd. The nature of the material means that it is easily justifiable to have a separate |'List of...' type article, and the section headers serve a purpose for pipe-linking. LISTCRUFT it most certainly is not, it is not even close to resembling any of the Wikipedia:Listcruft#Meaning|10 meanings that that essay suggests people might mean when they throw out that particular  as if it is a replacement for an argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:ACRONYM)

Comment: The NOM invokes  and .  concerns not having a section which contains unrelated facts of limited interest and RECOMMENDS keeping such information with other related information, as is done here.  concerns standalone list articles and RECOMMENDS the current article's approach where "...the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles...and ... the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out." While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid counter to some arguments, it doesn't apply here, where the example of previous years merely shows that this worked out to be a reasonable handling of similar information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA||WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates includes no information. It is just a big wall of text with the order the housemates came in, their occupation and age. I understand that almost everything fails  but what about official warnings, arguments, nominations, notable things the housemates have done in the house? Why does all that fail  for this year, but there's all that information on the pages for the housemates of previous serieses? I see that the housemates haven't done as much as they've done in previous serieses, therefore there is not much to write about, but I still think this page should be kept. Will what the housemates do after the show be included in the big wall of text (Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates) - cos I cannot see that happening. If this page gets deleted, then the pages for the housemates of all the previous series should be AFDed. Special:Contributions/83.70.71.2|83.70.71.2
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA||WP:TRIVIA)