567:, 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
803:- 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
558:
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
620:
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
154:
604:"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."
702:
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
707:
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.
680:
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.
317:
312:
225:
220:
88:
83:
392:
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
321:
229:
92:
271:
266:
304:
275:
212:
75:
148:
258:
729:
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?
525:" - 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,
440:
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).
655:. 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
414:
169:
115:
136:
773:
776:
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.
902:
883:
869:
850:
816:
785:
760:
739:
717:
690:
668:
634:
586:
542:
516:
491:
453:
429:
406:
198:
57:
130:
126:
564:
500:
176:
891:, even the 2000 episode, which is covered adequately by the article on the winner--which mostly just repeats the same material in any case.
482:. 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.
308:
216:
79:
262:
862:. Individual episodes of game shows are generally not notable, and I don't see anything in these articles that convinces me otherwise. --
647:
300:
208:
71:
63:
254:
142:
751:
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!
363:
358:
367:
17:
610:
472:
530:
499:—A game show episode is not notable. Any contestants who meet Knowledge's notability criteria have their own pages, and the
350:
526:
807:- there are reliable sources that address the subject directly and in detail. Consequently the page should be kept.
189:. Only reference is a youtube video of the show. Contested prod. Part of a collection created by the same editor.
612:(three fairly long paragraphs directly about the episode plus lots more about Keppel and the show in general) and
917:
36:
916:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
866:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
878:
812:
756:
713:
664:
581:
511:
53:
613:
477:
630:
538:
487:
425:
186:
863:
162:
617:
394:
808:
752:
709:
660:
591:
569:
548:
449:
354:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
828:
469:, this one episode did gain significant coverage from the media for having the first winner
49:
626:
616:(covering the episode and events surrounding it). I should also point out the presence of
602:
that I'm guessing you were referring to. Signifcant coverage is defined there as follows:
534:
483:
421:
841:
606:
480:
470:
898:
804:
781:
735:
704:
686:
656:
622:
595:
560:
466:
462:
402:
194:
442:
346:
384:
338:
292:
246:
109:
461:. While the vast majority of these are routine episodes which spectacularly fail
599:
554:
831:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
397:- and that not particularly significant - 4th person to win half a million.
609:
at least meets that definition, and depending on interpretation, so would
893:
777:
731:
682:
398:
190:
474:
774:
Who Wants to Be a
Millionaire? (UK game show)#One Foot in the Grave
910:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
565:
List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a
Millionaire?
533:, given that sources covering the episode in detail exist?
501:
List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a
Millionaire?
772:
Well looking again it appears it is already covered at
380:
376:
372:
334:
330:
326:
288:
284:
280:
242:
238:
234:
105:
101:
97:
161:
838:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
648:
301:
209:
203:I am also nominating the following other articles:
72:
64:
255:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (18th November 2006)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
920:). No further edits should be made to this page.
415:list of Television-related deletion discussions
175:
8:
413:Note: This debate has been included in the
503:article covers any wins for the top prize.
412:
594:is a style guideline which points to
7:
523:A game show episode is not notable.
479:and for a claim that it was rigged
465:and Devlin is nowhere near meeting
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
598:, the more specific branch of
1:
563:'s article or her listing in
937:
903:23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
884:20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
870:16:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
851:10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
817:15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
786:10:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
761:03:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
740:00:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
718:22:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
691:15:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
669:14:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
659:, and I have added some.
635:21:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
587:20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
559:are more appropriate for
543:19:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
517:14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
492:20:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
454:08:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
430:19:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
407:18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
199:18:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
58:00:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
913:Please do not modify it.
531:animated comedy episodes
527:science fiction episodes
32:Please do not modify it.
476:, for its high ratings
459:Keep November 2000 only
880:SarekOfVulcan (talk)
48:the whole shebang.
44:The result was
853:
849:
585:
515:
432:
418:
185:No indication of
928:
915:
881:
848:
846:
839:
837:
833:
579:
577:
509:
507:
445:
419:
388:
370:
342:
324:
296:
278:
250:
232:
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
936:
935:
931:
930:
929:
927:
926:
925:
924:
918:deletion review
911:
879:
842:
840:
826:
653:delete the rest
575:
505:
443:
361:
345:
315:
299:
269:
253:
223:
207:
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
934:
932:
923:
922:
906:
905:
886:
872:
864:Metropolitan90
856:
855:
854:
835:
834:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
764:
763:
743:
742:
721:
720:
694:
693:
672:
671:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
494:
456:
434:
433:
390:
389:
343:
297:
251:
183:
182:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
933:
921:
919:
914:
908:
907:
904:
900:
896:
895:
890:
887:
885:
882:
876:
873:
871:
868:
865:
861:
858:
857:
852:
847:
845:
836:
832:
830:
825:
824:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
799:
798:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
768:
767:
766:
765:
762:
758:
754:
750:
747:
746:
745:
744:
741:
737:
733:
728:
725:
724:
723:
722:
719:
715:
711:
706:
705:The Economist
701:
698:
697:
696:
695:
692:
688:
684:
679:
676:
675:
674:
673:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
644:
636:
632:
628:
625:makes clear.
624:
619:
615:
611:
608:
605:
601:
597:
593:
590:
589:
588:
583:
578:
572:
571:
566:
562:
561:Judith Keppel
557:
556:
551:
550:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
513:
508:
502:
498:
495:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:
475:
473:
471:
468:
464:
460:
457:
455:
451:
447:
446:
439:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
416:
411:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
396:
386:
382:
378:
374:
369:
365:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
323:
319:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
277:
273:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
227:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
205:
204:
201:
200:
196:
192:
188:
187:WP:notability
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
912:
909:
892:
888:
874:
859:
843:
827:
809:Bridgeplayer
800:
769:
753:Bridgeplayer
748:
726:
710:Bridgeplayer
699:
677:
661:Bridgeplayer
652:
645:
603:
574:
568:
553:
547:
522:
504:
496:
458:
441:
437:
391:
347:Steve Devlin
202:
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
45:
43:
31:
28:
576:Sottolacqua
506:Sottolacqua
395:WP:ONEEVENT
149:free images
50:Ron Ritzman
875:Delete all
860:Delete all
844:Sandstein
627:Alzarian16
592:WP:EPISODE
570:WP:YOUTUBE
549:WP:EPISODE
535:Alzarian16
497:Delete all
484:Alzarian16
438:Delete all
422:Tom Morris
829:Relisted
116:View log
801:Comment
770:Comment
749:Comment
727:Comment
700:Comment
678:Comment
444:Lugnuts
364:protect
359:history
318:protect
313:history
272:protect
267:history
226:protect
221:history
155:WP refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
889:Delete
867:(talk)
805:WP:GNG
657:WP:GNG
623:WP:NNC
596:WP:GNG
467:WP:BIO
463:WP:GNG
368:delete
322:delete
276:delete
230:delete
127:Google
93:delete
46:delete
899:talk
646:Keep
385:views
377:watch
373:links
339:views
331:watch
327:links
293:views
285:watch
281:links
247:views
239:watch
235:links
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
877:. --
813:talk
782:talk
757:talk
736:talk
714:talk
687:talk
665:talk
651:and
631:talk
618:this
614:this
607:This
600:WP:N
582:talk
555:WP:N
552:and
539:talk
512:talk
488:talk
450:talk
426:talk
403:talk
381:logs
355:talk
351:edit
335:logs
309:talk
305:edit
289:logs
263:talk
259:edit
243:logs
217:talk
213:edit
195:talk
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
894:DGG
778:noq
732:noq
683:noq
529:or
420:— —
399:noq
191:noq
177:TWL
114:– (
901:)
815:)
784:)
759:)
738:)
716:)
689:)
667:)
633:)
573:.
541:)
490:)
452:)
428:)
417:.
405:)
383:|
379:|
375:|
371:|
366:|
362:|
357:|
353:|
337:|
333:|
329:|
325:|
320:|
316:|
311:|
307:|
291:|
287:|
283:|
279:|
274:|
270:|
265:|
261:|
245:|
241:|
237:|
233:|
228:|
224:|
219:|
215:|
197:)
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
897:(
811:(
780:(
755:(
734:(
712:(
685:(
663:(
629:(
584:)
580:(
537:(
521:"
514:)
510:(
486:(
448:(
424:(
401:(
387:)
349:(
341:)
303:(
295:)
257:(
249:)
211:(
193:(
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.