Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real World/Road Rules Challenge

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, sources have been pointed out, passes Notability requirements. Possible bad faith AFD? Non Admin Close, Dusti^SPEAK!! 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge

Delete Article is completely unsourced. All the pages (individual challenges ) are also unsourced, making this a chain of unsourced materials supporting its own weight.Zredsox (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable, just because something has no sources doesn't doom it to deletion. You should be bold and find them yourself. Passes WP:N. Also, you wanted sources? here's one, and another from the network and 556 Google News Results Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't an issue, and there's no deadline on Wikipedia so the rush to deletion is odd. Solution is to improve the article, not delete... of course it needs better sourcing, but otherwise it's not bad now, and it will definitely be recreated (probably in worse form) if this is deleted. Townlake (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush to delete here. This article has been around for years completely unsourced, so I won't call it a rush. Just because there are sources out there doesn't mean anything because they are not in this article. Unless sources are actually applied to the article, it is a fairy tale without any basis for preservation. Sure, in theory we could wait around forever for the article to be made better, but Wikipedia is not a storage place for half baked ideas. This should be deleted and when someone does have the time or desire to properly source the article, they can rewrite it and it will be reviewed on those merits alone. As for the concern that this will be recreated in lessor form, there are many ways to stop that from happening, including restricting the recreation of the specific title. If Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008 can be deleted with sources, for not having good enough sources I don't see why this article should stick around with no sources.Zredsox (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is in fact a storage place for half baked ideas. That's the whole wiki concept. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So basically it is a double standard. Some articles need sources and are deleted otherwise - while others do not need to be sourced and anything goes. I think I am beginning to understand how things work around here.Zredsox (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of good sources exist, and AfD is not cleanup (we're already at top-level, nothing/nowhere to merge). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:POINT violation. Corvus cornix_talk 22:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is this article is not sourced. I don't think it could be any clearer. Zredsox (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the point is that you got huffy because you couldn't provide reliable sources for Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008, and therefore want to get rid of this article which just needs to be sourced. Corvus cornix_talk 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting how you flipped sides on this issue. One minute it is all about the reliable sources and the next there doesn't have to be sources. Zredsox (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted sources? I already posted several in my vote, but i guess it bears repeating Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess it bears repeating that they need to be in the appended to the proper points within the article. It does absolutely nothing to post them here. Zredsox (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - This is about cleanup. You nominated this for deletion when you could have put tags on the article requesting sources. AfD is not to be used to cleanup articles. You were unable to provide reliable sources for your pet article, that's why it got deleted and why your DRV failed. Don't mix apples and oranges. Corvus cornix_talk 16:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Stop making this personal. Obviously you threw objectivity out the window when you came here to whine. My DRV did not fail, I withdrew it. I am just going to repost that challenge article as soon as we go through the process here and prove that sources are not needed to keep any of these challenge articles - something you fully agree with (from reading your recent posts.) In the end I'll get what I need. However I appreciate your concern and please stayed tuned for more exciting RW/RR action.64.89.250.90 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be speedy deleted as recreated material. Sourcing for a possible upcoming season of a TV show is by necessity more strict than for seasons that have already passed. The result of this AfD has no bearing whatsoever on the previous (and possible future) AfDs for Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New material and sourcing has come to light. Just because a few people want to make a point by deleting it does not mean it is not valid or notable. It will keep being recreated and eventually it will remain. All the information that was in it initially will be there 6 months from now (being it was 100% correct) so deleting it out of some sort of vendetta is quite childish to say the least. What I have garnered from this discussion is that deletion is personal around here and has nothing to do with the quality of an article. BTW: Are you saying that The Real World: Brooklyn article should be the next to go being it is not even in production yet? I totally agree! Zredsox (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is reposted without reliable sources it will be deleted. Obviously, if there are reliable sources it will be kept. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Popular and long running television show on major cable network is obviously notable. Most of the article can easily be verified. Also, being unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 04:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some confusion on the sourcing rules, and how the CSD rules work, seem to be driving this AfD. Check out the closed DRV discussion here re RW/RR_2008. This AfD (and numerous other AfDs currently in process on other RW/RR articles) seems to have been inspired by that deletion and subsequent DRV. Townlake (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008 article DRV set a clear path as to how articles in this genre should be sourced if they are to be kept. This and many others have no sourcing. If different standards are applied to articles of the same vein, then we end up having a serious consistency problem across the board.Zredsox (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Each season of The Real World/Road Rules Challenge can easily be confirmed and sourced from MTV's website as well as imdb.com or tv.com, for example: Battle of the Sexes 2 and The GauntletEliRykellm (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand much of what is here can be sourced. What I am saying is that is it not sourced. It could have been sourced years ago but was not and unless that changes we are left with an article that doesn't even meet the lowest standards of quality on Wikipedia. Eventually you need to draw the line and decide - Is this article going to be sourced? Zredsox (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If nobody else has done it by the time I get to work tomorrow, I'll add some of Strange's sources to the article myself. Townlake (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update The good faith effort to add useful reference links has begun. I encourage everyone to improve the formatting and add additional sources. Townlake (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep

Jaime Moore 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep per all the above and a bit of advice to Zredsox: While you may have felt bitten, perhaps justifiably, by the deletion of your article, it is a considered a severe breach of wiki etiquette to try to retaliate by making a point to delete other articles which you perceive to suffer from similar problems. They actually don't—these articles are being kept because reliable sources exist to back them up, regardless of whether they are currently cited in the articles or not. If reliable sources exist, then the lack of them in an article is a problem solved by editing, not deletion. On the other hand, your own article was based on sources which were not deemed reliable by the community, so no matter how many similar sources you add to your article it will not make a difference, it will still be deleted and you will be perceived as a disruptive editor if you keep recreating without community consensus (please realize this is not a threat, but an observation of how the community generally reacts). On the other hand, why not have your article put in your userspace (I'm sure Fram would be willing to, and even if not, there are many admins who will) where you can work on it to your heart's content until MTV makes an verified announcement and mainstream newspapers and magazines start covering the show? Remember that there is no deadline here, and you can be sure that if this show is going to air, unambiguously reliable sources will eventually exist, and if you are patient, you can then bring this to DRV again and get this article back into the mainspace. DHowell (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2008 (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.