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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page was deleted less than a month ago per its first AfD, and the only increase in notability I see in this page is the claim about how it was deleted, which surely violates WP:SELF. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; recreation of deleted content and still no decent assertion of notability. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepAlthough the google results may not be ALL for THIS David Tench (but I would bet good money that almost all of them are), the exact search for the term "David Tench" on Google brings up 12,500 results. I'm guessing that wikipedia doesn't want to be one of them. Nah, screw that, you're wrong. People want to find out about this David Tench and I want those people to find out about it on wikipedia. I'm voting against you here JayKeaton 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I propose we wait and see if the show itself becomes popular/notable. If we put every annoying ad campaign into Wikipedia, the Foundation would need to add lots of new data storage... --Brianyoumans 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wait a minute... the increase in notability for this article is that the first version was AfD'ed? The article still doesn't assert the notability of the subject.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to answer a question here? Notability, the issue was printed in major australian papers, such as the Sunday Morning Herald. Not just that it was deleted, but it was printed in business sections of papers, the very issue of the wikipedia article JayKeaton 22:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a G4. At least 6 versions of this article have been speedy deleted as well as the original AfD'd article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the 'personality' is no more notable now than 'he' was a month ago. The notability that has supposedly been established by the one new source is not notability for David Tench, but is in reference to WP's interaction with the original article. As such, if it belongs anywhere it belongs in Criticism of Wikipedia, but that article will get along just fine without it. Yomangani 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems that Channel 10 (or someone involved in the production of the show is using Wikipedia to promote the show and I would think this goes against the principal of what Wikipedia was created for..also the show looks like a lame ripoff of something like Space Ghost Coast to Coast or Max Headroom. Mikecraig 09:41, 8 August 2006 (AEST)
• Delete An article on the TV show might meet notability criteria once the show has started and we know actual details. But a fictional character from a fictional show that has not even started yet is too much Dankru 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, never mind. The show airs in 8 days anyway, I guess peeps will just have to pick up a paper or tune in to find out about it. Or Google it of course, lol. Can't help but think if only it had of been an American show for this American website ^_^ I wouldn't mind living on planet America actually. JayKeaton 00:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Keep I believe you mean -English- site. The show is a legitimate program to go on air very soon, if it were to be considered for deletion on the basis that the character is fictional... then get ready to delete a lot more articles. Nidis 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  NB: The above comment was added by IP 144.139.71.23. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seriously worthless, contributes nothing to wikipedia and the television show has not started yet. Delete and be rid of it. --Jockmonkey 00:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per my reasons on the last AfD. This is a television show with ambiguous advertising that people want to know more about, so they turn to Wikipedia, the repository of human knowledge. As it has been covered in reputable sources like the Sydney Morning Herald, that is a service that Wikipedia can and should provide. Drett 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we now have three references in the Australian media including the Herald article. We still don't have a firm start date or any hard information. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete. WP:NOT wiki is not a soapbox. Advertising for speculative event, posted with the possible intention of viral marketing itself. However, once launched and is not dropped from its prime time slot, could be worthy of an article. Ohconfucius 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there seems to be a very hostile reaction to suspected, but completely unproven, use of Wikipedia for marketing purposes. Quite clearly it is a fairly major television show for Network Ten, so its existence is not in doubt. It's ironic that the lack of verifiable information which is making it notable at the moment is what's putting it at risk here. Ok, we could be looking at another Jasmine's Getting Married, but I think the nominator could have waited a few days (17 August) until the program started and found its legs. --Canley 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There isn't a "hostile" reaction to anything. This is primarily about notability and policy and guidelines. Many people are of the opinion that an upcoming TV show does not meet notability. Also, please see WP:NOT. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's all very well to cite WP:NOT which I am familiar with by the way, but which part of it are you referring to? There are just as many people citing "misuse of Wikipedia", "quality" and "popularity" as there are "notability" arguments. Even then, I'm just not convinced that this is not notable, even though it hasn't aired. I personally think it looks shite and doubt very much I'll ever watch it, but even if it's axed after two episodes, doesn't the failure of the whole Gabbo-style campaign and Channel 10's investment make it notable? It's verifiable, it will go to air, and I don't know why we're going through this AfD when the article is just going to be created again in just over a week. --Canley 07:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Take your pick: WP is not advertising, not a crystal ball, not for original research, not a news report, not for propaganda, not for self-promotion...Just about everything on WP:NOT can apply here. To characterise people as having a "hostile" reaction simply because they believe this article is inappropriate is incredibly unfair. I don't think keeping an article because it "is just going to be created again in just over a week" is a legitimate basis for deciding to keep or delete something.

  And no, IMO Channel 10's advertising campaign does not make this notable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If I had to pick one: crystal ball, and I think that only just barely applies - the other guidelines you cite, not at all! I certainly have a hostile reaction (alright, bad wording, aversion) to blatant advertising/marketing on Wikipedia, and I just don't think that's the case here. It's a natural reaction, and I don't mean to unfairly offend or characterise people who have the same reaction to this article - I just think accusations of Channel Ten meddling with the article are unverifiable and unfair. This program is quite clearly notable in my opinion, any marketing spin or bias can be removed or rewritten. We're obviously not going to change each other's minds, Sarah, hope we can agree to disagree! We'll see how it turns out I guess... --Canley 09:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, of course, I can definitely agree to disagree. I haven't seen anything that makes me think Channel 10 are directly involved with the articles, but they are engaging in viral marketing and from what I understand of the concept, that's exactly what this is. At least one of the articles I tagged for speedy deletion under G-4 was by an established Australian editor, so I'm not suggesting Channel 10 is directly involved in writing the articles. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if it is successful, then it deserves an article. WP should not be perpetuating channel ten's marketing campaign. Viridae^Talk 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it's a notable television show, it deserves an article. In just over a week, this will pass wikipedia guidelines for notability. Deleting it now just seems rather redundant, especially when you consider that there are around 80 articles in the category 'upcoming television series' [1] Drett 05:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  See, Drett, the problem is that many people believe this show doesn't deserve an article because it is simply not notable. That there are "around 80 articles" in that category is irrelevant. It just means that there are other articles that need to be deleted. One against-policy article does not justify another. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. If the so called "comments" presented here were presented in my workplace, you would get sacked. Wikipedia has really degenerated in the past months. Its like arguing with 5yos. Gtoomey 12:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is notable by virtue of the fact that it's an actual television show. There should be some more press about this tomorrow (As the Age and SMH have their TV supps and the Oz has it's Media section) Drett 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge i say all the information in this article should be recreated in the as yet uncreated "David Tench Tonight" tv show article - an article with more notability than this personality created by Channel Ten. i dont know how wikipedia's search function works but i assume that if people searching "david tench" end up at "david tench tonight" then that serves wikipedia's need to supply people wanting information with what they need. Caecilius 08:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  NB: This user has 16 edits plus 5 to the various David Tench AfDs. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have nothing better do do with your time spruiking this rubbish? What other Australian TV series do you want deleted? In the past few months I've come across a new type of wikipedian - one that prides themselves on how much they have deleted rather than contributed. If you are so excited about deleting articles why not propose the forgettable Richmond_Hill_(TV_series) Hang your head in shame. Repeat after me: YOU ARE A WASTE OF SPACE. Gtoomey 12:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've become quite an expert of acticle deletion, having had four of mine up for deletion. The arguments here are preposterous and its why the so-called 'debate' wikipedia is no more than schoolground prattle. From 17 Aug 2006 there will be numerous (hundreds?) of articles on this series. More than enough reason NOT to have it removed. For the people who want this article removed answer me this: Have you proposed the removal of wikipedia entries for other TV series before they air? The_Wedge_(TV_show) was advertised for at least 6 months before it started; do you want the wikipedia entry removed? Why pick on this one? Gtoomey 12:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I looked this show up and was surprised to see how little had been written on it. The show will be on in less than two weeks; there are articles on movies in production months before they're released. When the show comes on, it will no doubt make it notable enough to have this article recreated so it seems foolish to remove it now, only to bring it back a couple of days later.--Gregory j 13:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  NB: This user has 9 edits including to this AfD. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think some of the above are missing an important point - this article is not about the show, but a character in the show. The general idea for pages on characters is that they should only be split into their own pages when there becomes too much info on them for it to fit comfortably into the show's main page. Since this show doesn't even have an article... I would have no problem with some of this info being merged into one on the show, but right now there simply isn't one. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're wrong mate, the article David Tench Tonight has been deleted - in any case, this is under the wrong title. Regardless, the David Tench article focuses more on the actual show rather than the character.

• Keep:: The only reason for this deletion I can think of is the fact that a Network Ten person has started the article as part of a viral marketing campaign. The article in its current state does not sound promotional at all however - and now that the show has been featured in news articles as well as advertisements means it qualifies for notability, not only as a television show, but as an interesting controversial case in viral marketing. Rogerthat ^Talk 09:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All I know about this is that it is a prime-time Network Ten show. Isn't that enough? -- Chuq 09:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle for commercial TV. This show may never air more than a couple of episodes and may never be notable if it does. A character in an unaired show ( which has had it's article [deleted] ) is even less notable. No non-promotional mentions anywhere of signifance so fails WP:V and WP:RS - Peripitus (Talk) 10:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

despite a large majority of "Deletes", the page has improved much since I started it. It is feeling more like a grudge against the page. I don't really care if C10 did put a blatant ad on there, that is no reason to delete any trace of it, as if to get your own back. Which is really what I'm seeing here, that are far more insegnificant and promotional pages for things that arn't out yet on wikipedia. Even if it lasts five episodes and only 10 million people watched it and only 100 million people talked about it around the water cooler or in conversation, that seems like reason enough to keep it. I personally am not fussed over the whole thing, I love wikipedia and I like to edit and make stuff on it, like peeling potatos it's mindless fun. But the press to delete summat after a few minutes it was created (as that enough time to even edit it, or even read it?) screams of internet message board flaming and fandom, which doesn't sit well with me when I see the plethora of other "noteable" pages on wikipedia. It seems prejudice. Or at least plain stupid to let childish emotions dictate what you put on wikipedia. JayKeaton 11:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's only around 20 million people in Australia so I think "10 million people watch[ing] it and only 100 million people talk[ing] about it" might be wishful thinking. I dout anyone here is holding a grudge against Channel 10. I think most people just don't think the show is notable YET. But maybe one day it will be. The speedy deletion of has been because it is recreation of a previously deleted article WP:CSD#G4. It has nothing to do with the reasons you suggest. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Apathetic indifference. One month ago I argued for this article to be kept on the premise that a Television Show is notable, even if it hasn't been running for two years and has plots and characters and spin-offs. At the time the article was deleted because of arguments on several accounts:

1. We didn't know what the name of the television show was going to be.
2. We didn't know if David Tench was a real person or not.
3. There weren't enough sources of information to verify that it was an actual TV show.
4. Channel 10 were allegedly (though I've not personally seen any proof of this) using the Wikipedia article as part of an advertising campaign.
5. Most of the votes for keep were made by accounts that didn't have the mandatory minimum number of edits required to be eligible for voting (I'm not sure what that threshold is but it's there and we all know it).

As a result, the article was deleted but with I feel what was an understanding that it would be re-created again when more verifiable information came to hand. We can now verify through a number of sources items 1 through 3, so it's no surprise the article has been re-created. If point 4 is true, it's irrelevant. Several articles have and always will be targets of sef-promotion by the people behind them. Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, even those involved! The Colbert Report proved that. This is a reality of Wikipedia and is something we, as wikipedians, deal with. We don't delete articles just because someone's not playing fairly. We edit them. We modify them. We make them better.

As for point 5, there's nothing we can do about that. It's happening again. "User only has 5 edits, his opinion clearly can't be worthy. Listen to me more". I used to be around on Wikipedia gnome-editing here and there for about two years before I created an account. Why did I create an account? Because when I added my 2 cents to a debate (any debate) I got hit with "IP address. Don't listen to this guy". I create an account though and it's amazing what signing posts with a nonsensical phrase does for your credibility. ;) Throw a few rants on your user page and hey, people finally debate the points I raise rather than using argumentum ad hominem.

So where are we now? What do we know? My opinion is that this David Tench article should be moved to David Tench Tonight as we don't know enough about "David Tench" himself to warrant an article on him. What we do know would be better off in an article about the show. Problem is, I see that David Tench Tonight has been vigourously deleted lest, God forbid, anyone be given a chance to add any real content to it. Apparently an upcoming TV show isn't "notable". Sorry folks, I know you don't like it but television shows are notable. Even upcoming ones we can verify. Until you have an official policy that states otherwise, you have no valid argument against notability. In actual fact, notability isn't an official policy anyway but who cares about that one, right? Just so long as enough Wikipedian's believe it's true.

Thing is though, I don't care what happens to the article. In fact, go right ahead and delete the article right now. You can't though, can you? You have to wait at least, what is it, 5 days after nomination before deleting it? That makes it the 12th August when this article is getting deleted again (and I assure you, it will get deleted). 5 days later when the show airs on the 17th, guess what's going to happen? We're going through all of this to "save Wikipedia" - from an article which we all know deserves a right to be here - for 5 days? You've got to be fucking joking. But hey, deleting the article again might give David something to talk about when his show finally airs. It's certainly generated some nice articles about Wikipedia in the Australian press. Come the 17th, there are going to be many more Australian Wikipedia editors (both new and old) adding to this article and by that stage, it'll never get deleted. I'll be a happy Chicken then. Yay unto the Chicken 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep even though the page is a blatant self-reference, as the SMH reference is actually about the last AfD nomination, it has become notable as a prime example of viral marketing and as such should be exposed in this vein without wikipedia being a passive host for the process. Ansell 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article is giving information to those who want to know about David Tench. Thus, it shouldn't be deleted. Liyster 08:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was hoping to come to Wikipedia to find out more about David Tench, but what I found was a big and pointless debate. This show will no doubt be notable and that if this article is deleted then it will be brought back a few weeks later, maybe less. If it isn't a great show and not worthy of being an article then delete it after the first or second shows have been aired. Keyblade Wielder -- 05:09, 10 August 2006 (AWST)
• Strong keep. It's a real upcoming TV show on a major national network. --Centauri 09:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We shouldn't be misusing the speedy deletion G4 criteria as a means to stifle the growth of this encyclopedia. RFerreira 19:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reposting of the article in the same format that was deleted a few days before is not "growing the encyclopedia". Growing is providing new verifiable information that Wikipedia can use. Ansell 09:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I was not aware at first, til it was pointed out above, that the article about the show was also deleted (it was redlinked when I first saw it, as opposed to salted). I still don't think that the character warrants his own page, but the show almost certainly will be notable (what's the last real, aired TV program that's been declared NN?), especially given this much news/ad coverage before it even has started. I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense to delete all this when some of it could go to an article on the show, and would suggest a merge if that page wasn't locked up. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But Move to David Tench Tonight and change article to be about the show. This article should then redirect to that. - kollision 12:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Haha yeah I'm a genius, "merge only the page doesn't exist," Move that's the word I'm looking for! -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Move Yeah, i'm sure Channel Ten had something to do with the creation of this page as a viral marketing campaign [sarcasm]. It should be moved to David Tench Tonight. Maybe a few of these "delete" editors here will be scrounging around every user contribution page to check how many edits I have or how long i've been registered for. Pcpp 01:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Move (to David Tench Tonight) Will the show be good? Unlikely. Will it last longer than Yasmin? Slightly. There should be an article (for the show, not the "man") because all modern shows have them, no matter what the length or quality. For the record, it starts Thursday and I won't be watching. - Quolnok 10:27, 12 August 2006 (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.