564:
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. --
286:. 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
370:: "Knowledge (XXG) 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
515:
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
501:, 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. --
266:
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.
563:
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
514:
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
265:
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,
207:
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
391:
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,
613:
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
496:
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
137:
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
386:
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
399:
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
138:
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. --
431:. 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'.
395:
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
630:
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.
122:
117:
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
479:
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?
237:
Perhaps this article could be moved to Wikia
Scratchpad like the episode lists were? Although this isn't really the best article on Knowledge (XXG), it is very useful for fans of the show, and there are an awful lot of
497:
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
208:
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. →
83:
78:
87:
70:
110:
335:, 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.
647:
635:
618:
604:
568:
554:
523:
505:
484:
467:
449:
411:
378:
360:
339:
307:
294:
270:
251:
223:
191:
158:
142:
128:
52:
204:
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).
437:
My opinion has not altered one jot since the original nomination. All facts are verifiable against original transmissions; such source-based research meets
356:
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).
596:, 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
407:
standards. It might fail on standards regarding providing references, though, and like many articles could probably stand a cleanup on the writing.
535:
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--
300:
597:
457:
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
516:
218:
186:
17:
600:(still over 10K), which I shall submit for review by the article's regular editors, contributors here, and other concerned parties.
74:
66:
58:
614:
notable once it is talked about outside of the inner-core of fans (e.g. a newspaper article, and more than one at that). --
662:
36:
243:
The fact that something is useful does not make it encyclopaedic or mean that it deserves mention on wikipedia - see
661:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
331:, which isn't true. If the article has a problem with verification and references, that is a violation of
214:
182:
546:
502:
209:
177:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
644:
601:
537:
446:
498:
442:
404:
371:
367:
353:
345:
332:
328:
320:
313:
287:
279:
262:
244:
201:
168:
151:
632:
463:
49:
589:
438:
173:
615:
565:
481:
375:
304:
291:
248:
139:
349:
324:
283:
125:
520:
408:
357:
336:
267:
104:
327:. The nomination and most of the comments above said that the article violates
155:
519:- it might help lead to a good guideline for handling these sorts of shows.
290:
was "Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information". --
123:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records
445:. Lack of precedent is no ground to delete, nor are claims of "trivia".
374:(under wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). --
172:. Content seems very trivial and has little to no chance of gaining any
588:
to the article. These are fansites, and may not individually meet
202:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
169:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
282:
has several points which would disagree with you, as does indeed
655:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
585:
580:
Secondary sources exist for all the transmissions, I've added
403:
So, again, I am unconvinced that this article fails to meet
303:, which specifically makes my point above regarding OR. --
581:
100:
96:
92:
392:
the issue of providing references to verify the facts.
344:
Or to put it another way, the article doesn't violate
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
665:). No further edits should be made to this page.
259:Keep (assuming article's references up to par)
8:
301:Knowledge (XXG):List of bad article ideas
150:Unencyclopedic, trivial, fancruft. Fails
517:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Television
67:Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records
59:Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
643:Unencyclopedic, trivial fancruft. --
383:To reply to each of those concerns -
592:, but I submit that these sources,
461:do this is the decision is delete.
299:See also the last item on the list
24:
166:Whilst a very thorough article,
200:FYI, nothing in the section [[
1:
648:20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
636:19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
619:06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
605:18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
569:17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
555:16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
524:20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
506:12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
485:13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
468:15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
450:09:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
412:16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
379:06:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
361:20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
340:19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
308:11:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
295:10:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
271:23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
252:19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
224:11:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
192:17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
159:16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
143:15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
129:08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
53:17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
598:draft revision in userspace
387:context. And anything that
682:
261:Reviewing the article and
121:Original nomination here:
658:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
348:, but it might violate
429:Weak delete/else merge
594:when taken together
533:Really strong keeep
499:original research
222:
190:
673:
660:
553:
550:
543:
542:
212:
180:
174:reliable sources
108:
90:
34:
681:
680:
676:
675:
674:
672:
671:
670:
669:
663:deletion review
656:
548:
540:
539:
536:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
679:
677:
668:
667:
651:
650:
638:
633:Geoffrey Spear
624:
623:
622:
621:
608:
607:
574:
573:
572:
571:
558:
557:
529:
528:
527:
526:
509:
508:
490:
489:
488:
487:
471:
470:
452:
432:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
401:
397:
393:
384:
342:
297:
274:
273:
255:
254:
240:
239:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
195:
194:
161:
145:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
678:
666:
664:
659:
653:
652:
649:
646:
642:
639:
637:
634:
629:
626:
625:
620:
617:
612:
611:
610:
609:
606:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
576:
575:
570:
567:
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
552:
551:
545:
544:
534:
531:
530:
525:
522:
518:
513:
512:
511:
510:
507:
504:
500:
495:
492:
491:
486:
483:
478:
475:
474:
473:
472:
469:
466:
465:
460:
456:
453:
451:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
430:
427:
426:
413:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
385:
382:
381:
380:
377:
373:
369:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
341:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:
315:
311:
310:
309:
306:
302:
298:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
277:
276:
275:
272:
269:
264:
260:
257:
256:
253:
250:
246:
242:
241:
236:
233:
232:
225:
220:
216:
211:
206:
205:
203:
199:
198:
197:
196:
193:
188:
184:
179:
175:
171:
170:
165:
162:
160:
157:
153:
149:
146:
144:
141:
136:
133:
132:
131:
130:
127:
124:
119:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
657:
654:
640:
627:
593:
586:Bother's Bar
577:
547:
538:
532:
503:Sam Blanning
493:
476:
462:
458:
454:
434:
428:
388:
317:
258:
234:
167:
163:
147:
134:
120:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
645:SunStar Net
602:Eludium-q36
447:Eludium-q36
582:dond.co.uk
312:To reply,
50:Cbrown1023
616:John24601
566:John24601
482:John24601
376:John24601
305:John24601
292:John24601
249:John24601
235:Keep/Move
140:John24601
219:contribs
187:contribs
126:RobJ1981
111:View log
578:Comment
521:Dugwiki
477:Comment
455:Comment
409:Dugwiki
358:Dugwiki
337:Dugwiki
268:Dugwiki
84:protect
79:history
641:Delete
628:Delete
549:addict
494:Delete
464:Cipher
443:WP:NOR
405:WP:NOT
400:apply.
372:WP:NOT
368:WP:NOT
354:WP:NOR
346:WP:NOT
333:WP:NOR
329:WP:NOT
321:WP:NOR
314:WP:NOT
288:WP:NOT
280:WP:NOR
263:WP:NOT
245:WP:NOT
164:Delete
156:Bwithh
152:WP:NOT
148:Delete
135:Delete
88:delete
46:Delete
590:WP:RS
541:Telly
439:WP:RS
396:ones.
238:them!
210:Ollie
178:Ollie
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
584:and
459:only
441:and
435:Keep
350:WP:V
325:WP:V
284:WP:V
215:talk
183:talk
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
352:or
323:or
318:not
316:is
176:. →
109:- (
480:--
389:is
247:--
217:•
185:•
154:.
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
221:)
213:(
189:)
181:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.