Deletion of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1)

Comment: as per . Far too many "reality TV" articles are like this: an unsourced, ,  listing of "results" with no real notable content. What was done at these articles belongs at the Wiki, ''not'' on Wikipedia. Delete ''hard
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:INUNIVERSE||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I'll comment and quickly leave the scene as I have bad experience here. I've had the (dis)pleasure of going over hundreds of reality articles the past 2 years from fixing article titles to working on the reality infobox. I can say without a doubt that most of these articles are exactly as these nominated above. The editors who create them, while probably doing so in good faith, just don't care about any MoS guideline. They copy the previous season tables, input the data and move on. However, go in and try to fix something, and you'll encounter a shit storm and good luck trying to get any consensus for a change. These reality articles are mostly uncited, full of trivia and excessive "in-universe" information (why does I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 18)#Dingo Dollar challenges have a column that lists "Scones with jam & clotted cream" as a prize? Who cares? This is not a rhetorical question, I really want to know who is the person that for him this was the information he was after) and that is before even going into grammar, layout, accessibility and linking issues. This is all just to say that, while , in this case, the OSE is a large part of our community who just doesn't care to do better
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: These articles as with many in the genre of "reality television", subsist because they are '''covered by the general notability guidelines .''' The general notability guideline states: ''"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."''  I cannot see any -REASON that applies. Lack of article quality does not trump  for article validity
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:DEL||WP:GNG)

Comment: unless  and  is addressed in time, which can be easily the case - if both are addressed, I'll switch my vote. Meanwhile,  is an essay and therefore has absolutely no standing whatsover on an article's fate
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: as opposed to the  which permits the existence of an article, even those  which are start class
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is a known TV show (and all its series) just like Britain's Got talent, American Idol, etc. They comply with  requirements. Dont see why these have to be deleted while the rest of similar TV shows can be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series). The nominator raises a valid point, looking through these articles all of them are summarised in the parent article anyways, the rest of can be considered  and  and that belongs outside of Wikia or another external fansite
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT||WP:OR)

Comment: The quality of the references has been raised as an issue above. Per  what matter is whether sourcing '''''can be''''' found in reliable sources for each article. I've been through each one and found broadsheet coverage (Telegraph, Guardian, Independent etc.) for each one. This is what the nominator should have done before bringing this to . Whilst the tabloids do cover this series in detail, the broadsheets also give it regular coverage, as does the BBC, ITV News etc. and the sources are easy to find
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:AFD)

Comment: All these seasons pass  because the show is huge and so gets extensive coverage in all the press and specialist media magazines like the ''Radio Times''.  It's an institution in the UK and so the readership is high.  Even season 1, which happened over 17 years ago, still gets thousands of readers every day.  There are numerous spinoffs in other countries and the nomination doesn't address these.  And the argument  cuts both ways.  What it actually says is that "''these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes''".  It's clearly our standard policy to maintain articles for the seasons of all these major shows.  All the following are blue links and this proves it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: I'm doubtful that the nominator had bothered to conduct a  or understand the deletion criteria.  This is one of the biggest show on British television, there are without doubt a lot of coverage on major news outlets on the programme, for example for this year, you can see coverage in the https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-50385644 BBC,  https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/nov/28/make-them-retch-why-im-a-celebrity-is-the-only-reality-tv-for-our-times The Guardian, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2019/11/27/arguing-washing-up-celebrity-really-case-bullying/ Telegraph, https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/im-a-celebrity-who-left-evicted-last-night-catch-up-adele-roberts-nadine-coyle-a9227071.html Independent, etc. all major reliable news outlet, easily satisfying . The nominator rationales are not based on any deletion criteria, and misunderstand the purpose of AfD, for example the notability of the article is not based on sources in the article, but based on sources that exist (therefore conducting a search per BEFORE is essential). AfD is not meant for improving article, that can be done in the talk page, therefore all the complaints about these articles are irrelevant and should not be part of the discussion in an AfD. I can see many non-notable season articles for other shows, this is not one of them, and bringing this up for deletion discussion without doing a basic search is just wasting other people's time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG)

Comment: I have always found these articles to be very informative, especially with the contestants list and voting statistics. All articles meet  and have existed for years so there is no need to either delete them or elongate the existing I'm a Celebrity Page. With the greatest of respect, I think the only thing to do here now would be for the user who nominated these articles for deletion to withdraw their nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: unless someone can demonstrate that the articles can be cleaned up and fixed. At this point, if people want the articles to exist, just  them and start again. Not hard
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)