Template:Did you know nominations/One Hundred And Eighty


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by 4meter4 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

One Hundred and Eighty

 * ... that although One Hundred and Eighty offers a £20,000 jackpot, scoring 180 wins only £500?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hud (film)

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 22:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. Both references have "Missing or empty title=". Could you add URLs for the relevant webpages please? Hook is "hooky" enough. Where the hook fact appears in the article, there needs to be a citaition at the end of that sentence, not just the end of the paragraph. Not yet checked for close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. Edwardx (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Both fixed. I'd filled in both, but not the series parameter. That must be a common error - where can I have a bot do it?-- Laun  chba  ller  14:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Thanks. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm still struggling to review this properly. As far as I can figure it, the main source seems to be an episode that you watched. On the one hand, this source mostly supports content similar to a movie plot, which wouldn't need to be cited as such. On the other hand, it might be seen by some as skirting close to WP:OR. As for the hook, "£500" has a citation, but it is to that episode again; the "20,000 jackpot" needs a cite. It would be most appreciated if you could hunt online for more webpages to support the article! Edwardx (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I've added a cite to the jackpot.-- Laun  chba  ller  10:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article, after recent edits, now has but a single primary source and the only remaining citations are in the infobox, with none at all in the body of the article. Obviously, this cannot be promoted as it is, and it by the earlier description, it sounds as if it were dicey even before that, given the lack of secondary sourcing. Launchballer, this needs some significant work. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the same sodding IP address removing both sources to TV shows and references to UKGameshows.com. (S)he's done with it near enough every game show article I've written in the last six months. I have reinstated the references to the state they were before the removal; are they needed in rounds 4 and 6?-- Laun  chba  ller  07:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Launchballer, thanks. Yes, I think all rounds need to have source citations. The IP, whoever it is, is citing verification, reliability, and notability issues (WP:IMPORTANT). I'm still troubled by the sourcing, and feel constrained to note this (from the notability article): if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. As Edwardx notes, almost every cited fact comes a single episode that you watched. Regarding UKGameshows.com, I think you need to run this source past the reliable sources noticeboard and reference both this article and the Safeword one in your request, to see whether that site is indeed considered reliable. If not, then absent new reliable secondary sourcing, both nominations become untenable. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. I await a response.-- Laun  chba  ller  18:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you BlueMoonset, for your considered input. I was reluctant to decline this if it could be salvaged. I'm relaxed about there being an article on this show, as I don't doubt it exists. However, I am inclined to agree that it is not looking suitable for DYK. Edwardx (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg As the UKGameshows.com site has been determined not to be reliable, the article is back where it was: no citations in the lede or body, and the only source, a primary one, just used in the infobox. As such, it is not adequately sourced for DYK, either the hook or the article itself. Marking for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for a response on whether or not the show itself is reliable, it can be used to sourced nearly all of the article text. But I will look for others.-- Laun  chba  ller  11:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even were it acceptable, that would leave two primary sources (the show itself and the network on which it appears), which would still be inadequate for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agh! My internet's been down for the last ten or so hours. I've just saved what was in my editing window at the time it went, but I will add any remaining sources. (Nearly all of them take the form of 'a new darts-based quiz show is coming to Sky' rather than 'One Hundred and Eighty review'.)-- Laun  chba  ller  22:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg It has been two weeks since the nominator's last plea for more time and we are still waiting for the needed sources. --Allen3 talk 10:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can advise, that although I forgot to post here, all the sources I could find I've listed, so if it isn't enough then that's it.-- Laun  chba  ller  11:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I'm a Brit and I didn't know what One Hundred and Eighty is; might it be worth expanding it to "British darts-based gameshow One Hundred and Eighty" or something? Presumably the article title should also be italicised, as well. With hook expansion and sourcing as above, I'd happily support — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)