Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top prize losers in Who Wants to be a Millionaire?


 * 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. The list does not feature sources to prove its value and notability. While Terrier provided additional references, these did not support the topic itself. The entire content of the page falls under WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

List of top prize losers in Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems to be nothing but fancruft, it holds no encyclopedic value, and should be deleted as a non-encyclopedic article which does not belong here. Scapler (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, Wikipedia is not a Millionaire fansite. A lot less crufty than many other lists I've seen though. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?; both relevant and interesting in the context of the broader article. TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * delete Trivial, unsourceable beyond the actual eps. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Trivial? In the greater scheme of things the whole programme is trivial but, in the context of the programme, someone losing the top prize is decidedly significant. It is, of course, wholly wrong to say that it is unsourceable. Such events result in wide publicity and the Laurence and Jackie Llewelyn-Bowen incident is sourced here and here, for instance (now added). TerriersFan (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Still, it certainly does not warrant its own article, it may matter slightly in the context of the show, but certainly does not matter even slightly or microscopically enough to have its own article, at the very least, merge it. Scapler (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Might I suggest that you are tilting at windmills? No-one is arguing for a standalone page. However, the essence of the show is the possibility of winning and losing a fortune. Without big losers the show would be nothing (if it is anything anyway :-) ). Consequently, big losers are significant in the context of the show. TerriersFan (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikipedia policy states both that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that lists of trivial information do not warrant their own article. Scapler (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Terriers. This is some interesting trivia from the show.  I acknowledge that "List of top prize winners" has been tolerated as its own separate article, but I think that that, too, is interesting but useless trivia.  That's my final answer. Mandsford (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2008 (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.