Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

No long running game shows have record page, why should a newer popular show have one? All the other recent game show records pages were deleted, this shouldn't be any exception. Move to a gameshow wiki (if there is one

Original nomination here: Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records RobJ1981 08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not because the article may set a precedent or be an exception to the norm (both these things are acceptable), simply because it's totally arbitary in places (relies on what editors think are significant wins rather than any published source), and is not referenced anywhere (and hence not readily verifiable). It also drifts way off topic in places. Finally, I'm just not sure that it's warranted, at least not in an encyclopaedia: noting the top and bottom wins might perhaps be justified in the main article, but otherwise there's nothing particularly encyclopaedic about the rest. --John24601 15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic, trivial, fancruft. Fails WP:NOT. Bwithh 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Whilst a very thorough article, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information . Content seems very trivial and has little to no chance of gaining any reliable sources. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, nothing in the section Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information appears to apply to this article. That section is very limited in scope (ie the specific items listed in the section that have broader consensus for deletion).
 * It seems I have misinterpreted the policy somewhat, hence I have struck though this. To elaborate on the point I intended to make, I feel that the article could stand if it were drastically cut down. Winning a significantly large or small amount of money is notable and worthy of inclusion, but being one of 30ish people to win between 10p and £100 seems too insignificant to me. Likewise listing ~20 people to win £20,000 and ~10 to win £10. This is content for a fan site, not an encyclopedia. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep/Move Perhaps this article could be moved to Wikia Scratchpad like the episode lists were? Although this isn't really the best article on Wikipedia, it is very useful for fans of the show, and there are an awful lot of them!
 * The fact that something is useful does not make it encyclopaedic or mean that it deserves mention on wikipedia - see WP:NOT --John24601 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (assuming article's references up to par) Reviewing the article and WP:NOT as cited above, I fail to see any parts of WP:NOT that apply to this article. The indiscriminate section cited is, as written, limited in scope primarily to the areas of consensus mentioned in the policy, none of which fit this article.  Likewise, other sections of WP:NOT don't fit either.  In fact, this would appear to be essentially an episodic-synopsis of the series.  And since articles about television series episodes are generally acceptable, and this article actually accumulates multiple episode details within a single text, if anything this appears to be a better format for providing details for a weekly serial realty series. Just my opinion. Dugwiki 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR has several points which would disagree with you, as does indeed WP:V. First of all, all of the information on here is from a primary source (the show), which, as both policies say, is to be avoided if at all possible, due to the inherent bias and possibility of misinterpretation of these sources. As all of the information is from the show itself, there is also no notability to the subject: if you find secondary sources (e.g. newspaper articles) on specific wins, then those are notable: a list of what hapenned in a show is not. The bit I was pointing to in WP:NOT was "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". --John24601 10:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See also the last item on the list List of bad article ideas, which specifically makes my point above regarding OR. --John24601 11:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To reply, WP:NOT is not WP:NOR or WP:V. The nomination and most of the comments above said that the article violates WP:NOT, which isn't true.  If the article has a problem with verification and references, that is a violation of WP:NOR, which is a different policy.  If you want to complain about the lack of verification, that's fine, but that is an entirely different subject from what I discussed above. Dugwiki 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, the article doesn't violate WP:NOT, but it might violate WP:V or WP:NOR because of a lack of references. My keep recommendation is going to be contingent on the references being up to par (I'll alter my suggestion accordingly). Dugwiki 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" - I think we can assume that any "important" games mentioned on here (other than the highest & lowest wins) are probably somebody's own thoughts. It's also a news report of kinds, and opinion on current affairs. Also, whilst it's not fiction, I think it comes under the spirit (if not the letter) of the plot summaries section of WP:NOT (under wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). --John24601 06:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To reply to each of those concerns -
 * 1) "Not a publisher of original thought" The article does not obviously fit this section, which covers "publishing your own thoughts and analysis". It is listing data about the show, but is not (far as I know) an analysis by the author about what the data might mean in any social or scientific context. And anything that is disputably original opinion can be deleted from the article without deleting the entire thing.  For example, if it appears that a comment about the significance of an event is a "weasel word" or the author's opinion, that can be deleted without removing the actual data. Note that there is, however, the issue of providing references to verify the facts.
 * 2) "News reports" specifically covers the firsthand reporting on breaking stories. These are not breaking stories, but rather an accumulation of historical data from the show.  It is not reporting on "current" events, but indexing historical ones.
 * 3)"Plot summaries" Plot summaries is specifically for works of fiction, which this isn't, and says that an article should not solely provide a summary of a fictional plot. Since the show is neither fictional and is providing information outside of a simple plot summary, this section does not apply.
 * So, again, I am unconvinced that this article fails to meet WP:NOT standards. It might fail on standards regarding providing references, though, and like many articles could probably stand a cleanup on the writing. Dugwiki 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete/else merge. Lots of good work in this, but it's still far too comprehensive and undeserving of an article in the first place when considering most game shows. Put the top wins and some smaller misc facts into the main article under 'UK Records and Facts'.
 * Keep My opinion has not altered one jot since the original nomination. All facts are verifiable against original transmissions; such source-based research meets WP:RS and WP:NOR. Lack of precedent is no ground to delete, nor are claims of "trivia". Eludium-q36 09:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If the decision is to delete this, would the nominator please let me know about it as I will move it over to another wiki. However, I will only do this is the decision is delete. Cipher (Yell) 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If you're prepared to transwiki in the event of a delete, then surely that indicates that you know of another wiki where this would be appropriate. This being the case, why have you not already at least copied it there? --John24601 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sourced. Verification has to be repeatable, and already-broadcast episodes of game shows are not, by and large, retrievable for anyone who wants to check the facts. The episodes of most fiction TV programmes can be used as primary sources because every episode is usually easily available on video, but episodes of daily gameshows are not. Verification is also not repeatable if verifying the record requires watching every single episode and looking for the highest/lowest bid etc, that would be original research, but as Noel makes a habit of comparing current games to previous records, I would guess that most of the records have been explicitly set out in one episode or another. However, that's the point, I have to guess - I cannot go back and watch previous episodes because it's a gameshow and unlike fictional series, there is no way for the average reader to confirm the facts. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As an aside, repeatability of verification is an interesting point that might be relevant to a related more general topic of how to handle episodic information for television series. Some television series have articles for each episode, but other series don't.  The point you bring up regarding some shows not airing in syndicated or DVD reruns is a good one, and could apply not only to game shows but also soap operas and professional wrestling shows, etc. We might want to require that, if a show does not air reruns, the information be verifiable through a DVD, for example, or a published news article or review talking about that particular episode. I'll mention this on the WikiProject Television - it might help lead to a good guideline for handling these sorts of shows. Dugwiki 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Really strong keeep This article is really good and hold records for a lot of records for deal or no deal and is generally an excellent article. definitely keep--  Telly   addict  16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's wonderful - it houses a whole host of information. But, that information isn't necessarily encyclopaedic. As myself and others have pointed out, it's not verifiable (as if it were sourced, which it isn't, it would be to individual shows which the average reader has no way of getting hold of a copy of), and because we are taking it straight from a primary source, we have no way to establish notability (as we would if, say, we were to make reference to academic papers, newspaper articles etc.). I'm also not sure that it's particularly encyclopaedic to have such a list, regardless of its sources. Finally, going back to the notability issue - right now, a few editors are interested in it. In 12 months, nobody will remember the majority of these players and wins, and in 5-10 years, the entire show is likely to be a distant memory. So why should we keep it? "It holds alot of information" doesn't really cut the ice, IMHO. --John24601 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Secondary sources exist for all the transmissions, I've added dond.co.uk and Bother's Bar to the article. These are fansites, and may not individually meet WP:RS, but I submit that these sources, when taken together, are reliable for our purposes. As noted by other contributors to this discussion, the content is far less well-defined than it should be; I have a draft revision in userspace (still over 10K), which I shall submit for review by the article's regular editors, contributors here, and other concerned parties. Eludium-q36 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider that fan sites count as unbiased secondary sources, all they prove is that someone else has already written a list of what hapenned in every episode: that's no reason for us to do the same, or to pick out what we consider to be the most important ones. IMHO, the topic only becomes notable once it is talked about outside of the inner-core of fans (e.g. a newspaper article, and more than one at that). --John24601 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as unencyclopedic, trivial fancruft. Merge actual records (as in, the actual highest and lowest amount won; the seconds through 30th highest are not "records" at all, IMO) into main page for the show and get rid of the rest. Geoffrey Spear 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic, trivial fancruft. --SunStar Nettalk 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.