Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (15th November 1999)


 * 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 whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (15th November 1999)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of WP:notability. Only reference is a youtube video of the show. Contested prod. Part of a collection created by the same editor. noq (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following other articles:

While they include the first episode and the episode of the first million pound win, those events are covered in the main article and the episode article adds nothing to it. The Steve Devlin article is someone famouse for WP:ONEEVENT - and that not particularly significant - 4th person to win half a million. noq (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all Even the episode about the first winner isn't notable in its own right. Any useful content should be merged into the main article (I assume there's a section on who's won the big money).  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep November 2000 only. While the vast majority of these are routine episodes which spectacularly fail WP:GNG and Devlin is nowhere near meeting WP:BIO, this one episode did gain significant coverage from the media for having the first winner , for its high ratings  and for a claim that it was rigged . There's more than enough fto justify an article here, and more content than could be held in the main article if it's fleshed out properly. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all—A game show episode is not notable. Any contestants who meet Wikipedia's notability criteria have their own pages, and the List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? article covers any wins for the top prize.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "A game show episode is not notable." - why not? That's just your opinion, and not one that the reliable sources I linked to above seem to share. Is there any policy-based reason why a game show episode should be less notable than, say, science fiction episodes or animated comedy episodes, given that sources covering the episode in detail exist? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:EPISODE and WP:N detail the notability requirements needed for article inclusion. These episodes would be notable if they "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, no evidence is presented to suggest that this criteria has been met. The first three references are more appropriate for Judith Keppel's article or her listing in List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, since each deals more with Keppel than the actual notability of the episode on which she appeared. Mentioning the episode received high ratings does not mean it is also a single notable episode. The last reference also relates more to Keppel than the actual episode. The fourth reference discusses ratings and it's higher rating than another show, but one episode achieving a higher rating than the finale of another program does not meet the notability requirements stressed in the other guidelines. Furthermore, none of the references you present are linked in the articles as they stand now. Additionally, the external links within each article feature user-uploaded copyrighted material, which is a violation of WP:YOUTUBE.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:EPISODE is a style guideline which points to WP:GNG, the more specific branch of WP:N that I'm guessing you were referring to. Signifcant coverage is defined there as follows: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This at least meets that definition, and depending on interpretation, so would (three fairly long paragraphs directly about the episode plus lots more about Keppel and the show in general) and this (covering the episode and events surrounding it). I should also point out the presence of this list of the questions on the Guardian website, which should aid with verifiability. To answer your last two points, yes the current article is poor, but if it's kept I'll add the sources and remove the YouTube links. Notability is not concerned with article content, as WP:NNC makes clear. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (20th November 2000) and delete the rest. Most episodes are inconsequential but the 20th November 2000 is notable both for being the first £1 million win and the subsequent controversy. Plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG, and I have added some. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment would it not be more appropriate to add to the controversy section of the main article - which does not mention this - rather than create a small article just for this. The £1 million win is documented in the main article anyway. noq (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Certainly adding a summary to the main article would be a good idea. However, since this episode article exists, my view is that there are sufficient sources around to meet notability requirements. I would add that when a publication such as The Economist draws social conclusions from a TV episode something notable is happening. Whether the material is better placed elsewhere is an editorial matter that is worth discussing but, since we are here, I see no sound grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Adding the controversy section to the main article means that there is nothing significant left on this article that is not already covered in the main article - so what purpose does this article then serve? noq (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If that happens we can then review things but first we need to agree that this page is kept or else there will be nothing to merge! Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Well looking again it appears it is already covered at Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show) so there is nothing that needs to be merged. Anyway, the idea that it could not have been added to the main article without keeping this article seems strange. noq (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that I was rambling (obviously I shouldn't type when I'm tired :-)), so let me summarise. There is more in the article than the controversy; the article provides an integrated account of the episode. Whether the material should have been handled differently is an editorial matter outwith this AfD; it wasn't, an article has been written, so we are here. The episode is notable because it meets WP:GNG - there are reliable sources that address the subject directly and in detail. Consequently the page should be kept. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Individual episodes of game shows are generally not notable, and I don't see anything in these articles that convinces me otherwise. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, even the 2000 episode, which is covered adequately by the article on the winner--which mostly just repeats the same material in any case.    DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 30 July 2011 (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.