- 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of Have I Got News for You episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is with a heavy heart I bring this to AfD. The whole list is not shown to be verifiable, the only citations being the viewing figures (and even then, only since 1998). The whole list is filled with original research, as shown by all of the trivial, unsourced footnotes. Everything I see goes right against core verifiability policies and I would love and hate to see it banished. If it can all be sourced then I'll be happy to withdraw this. But I simply cannot see that happening anytime soon; Dailymotion (itself virtually the same thing as WP:RSPYT in policy terms I guess) is not a source I would like to use; and yet in a quick search, that poor source appears the only thing to give the list any credence. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Politics, and United Kingdom. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - even if there was some way to verify the information, we don't need to host it WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk) 18:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. There are two sources in the external links section (the British Comedy Guide and the BBC episode guide). They’re incomplete, but I think they show that the list is, in principle, verifiable. Are they primary sources? Possibly, but I think there’s a potential application for something like WP:PLOTCITE here, where the episode itself (or the BBC’s own listings) can be the source for uncontroversial statements of fact - in this case, who the guests were. Arguably the episode itself is a source for who won. In terms of notability (which should be the main discussion here), WP:NLIST is met by articles such as [1] which discuss the series over time. It’s clearly a notable and well-defined grouping. OR in the footnotes is a cleanup task. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 22:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC).
- Youtube or Dailymotion are sites hosting the original content. Either can be referenced accurately using APA or other reference system. You cant get more accurate than the original material so i dont see any issue [sorry, cant log in on my phone] 2001:44C8:4654:44F7:1:0:8CC5:A9CD ( talk) 07:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. YouTube and Dailymotion links can work as direct sources for information about the guests and the final team scores. If it's the viewing figures that are the issue, we can just remove those columns. The page has 14415 views in the last 21 days and serves as a fairly important reference to a culturally significant show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeidenschaftlichSchnell ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is bizarrely obsessed with standalone episode lists but WP:TNT applies. If there’s a demand for it, it can be undeleted and overhauled by a dedicated editor or team; otherwise the only thing we’re losing is a lot of poorly sourced niche data. Dronebogus ( talk) 00:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Nomination does not seem to be in good faith, if there are concerns about verifiability of information then there's the BBC's own Programme Index, and as mentioned video footage of the episodes themselves.
Cwmxii (
talk)
20:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:RSPYT...
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
06:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop bludgeoning Dronebogus ( talk) 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:RSPYT...
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
06:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)- Keep: Literally every episode is on YouTube and I have never seen a listing here that was wrong. This is an invaluable source of reference for the show and its guests. 173.84.63.219 ( talk) 00:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Okay controversial opinion; Is it encyclopedic? Yes. Will Wikipedia be worse off for deleting this? Yes. However .... everything here needs to be sourced and unfortunately having searched 3 random names from the list and got blanks it would be apparent that the majority of what's here cannot be sourced and verified, and neither can the scores either (who's to say some IP didn't change a number 5 years ago that's gone undetected?)
- Fails SIGCOV and GNG. –
Davey2010
Talk
22:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I picked some random names (1993 Alan Coren John Simpson) and got tons of sources including British Comedy Guide and the BBC Programme Index. Sheila1988 ( talk) 15:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. It's possible to add sources. Sheila1988 ( talk) 15:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there are additional reliable sources out there for this article, could those arguing to Keep provide a few more examples for consideration and evaluation? I'm sure we still have some editors who are undecided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The basic information of host and contestants is easily referenceable to British newspapers and TV guides. The show attracts a fair amount of press every series. [2] [3] [4] Some of the content is more dubious - the scores are unlikely to be covered in reliable sources, and are more suited to a fansite. But just because some of it can't be referenced, doesn't mean the rest should go. Episode lists seem in principle to be considered important enough to keep based on repeated AfD and precedent, assuming basic info can be referenced, as here. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 14:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per TNT and, if no additional sources exist, maybe GNG - there's no clear reason why we can't have a list of episodes (considering it is a valid article for other shows with sourcing), but the current sourcing is awful, and the format with the scores appears to violate original research. SportingFlyer T· C 20:18, 9 July 2023 (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.
- 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of Have I Got News for You episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is with a heavy heart I bring this to AfD. The whole list is not shown to be verifiable, the only citations being the viewing figures (and even then, only since 1998). The whole list is filled with original research, as shown by all of the trivial, unsourced footnotes. Everything I see goes right against core verifiability policies and I would love and hate to see it banished. If it can all be sourced then I'll be happy to withdraw this. But I simply cannot see that happening anytime soon; Dailymotion (itself virtually the same thing as WP:RSPYT in policy terms I guess) is not a source I would like to use; and yet in a quick search, that poor source appears the only thing to give the list any credence. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Politics, and United Kingdom. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - even if there was some way to verify the information, we don't need to host it WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk) 18:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. There are two sources in the external links section (the British Comedy Guide and the BBC episode guide). They’re incomplete, but I think they show that the list is, in principle, verifiable. Are they primary sources? Possibly, but I think there’s a potential application for something like WP:PLOTCITE here, where the episode itself (or the BBC’s own listings) can be the source for uncontroversial statements of fact - in this case, who the guests were. Arguably the episode itself is a source for who won. In terms of notability (which should be the main discussion here), WP:NLIST is met by articles such as [1] which discuss the series over time. It’s clearly a notable and well-defined grouping. OR in the footnotes is a cleanup task. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 22:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC).
- Youtube or Dailymotion are sites hosting the original content. Either can be referenced accurately using APA or other reference system. You cant get more accurate than the original material so i dont see any issue [sorry, cant log in on my phone] 2001:44C8:4654:44F7:1:0:8CC5:A9CD ( talk) 07:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. YouTube and Dailymotion links can work as direct sources for information about the guests and the final team scores. If it's the viewing figures that are the issue, we can just remove those columns. The page has 14415 views in the last 21 days and serves as a fairly important reference to a culturally significant show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeidenschaftlichSchnell ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is bizarrely obsessed with standalone episode lists but WP:TNT applies. If there’s a demand for it, it can be undeleted and overhauled by a dedicated editor or team; otherwise the only thing we’re losing is a lot of poorly sourced niche data. Dronebogus ( talk) 00:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Nomination does not seem to be in good faith, if there are concerns about verifiability of information then there's the BBC's own Programme Index, and as mentioned video footage of the episodes themselves.
Cwmxii (
talk)
20:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:RSPYT...
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
06:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop bludgeoning Dronebogus ( talk) 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:RSPYT...
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
06:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)- Keep: Literally every episode is on YouTube and I have never seen a listing here that was wrong. This is an invaluable source of reference for the show and its guests. 173.84.63.219 ( talk) 00:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Okay controversial opinion; Is it encyclopedic? Yes. Will Wikipedia be worse off for deleting this? Yes. However .... everything here needs to be sourced and unfortunately having searched 3 random names from the list and got blanks it would be apparent that the majority of what's here cannot be sourced and verified, and neither can the scores either (who's to say some IP didn't change a number 5 years ago that's gone undetected?)
- Fails SIGCOV and GNG. –
Davey2010
Talk
22:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I picked some random names (1993 Alan Coren John Simpson) and got tons of sources including British Comedy Guide and the BBC Programme Index. Sheila1988 ( talk) 15:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. It's possible to add sources. Sheila1988 ( talk) 15:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there are additional reliable sources out there for this article, could those arguing to Keep provide a few more examples for consideration and evaluation? I'm sure we still have some editors who are undecided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The basic information of host and contestants is easily referenceable to British newspapers and TV guides. The show attracts a fair amount of press every series. [2] [3] [4] Some of the content is more dubious - the scores are unlikely to be covered in reliable sources, and are more suited to a fansite. But just because some of it can't be referenced, doesn't mean the rest should go. Episode lists seem in principle to be considered important enough to keep based on repeated AfD and precedent, assuming basic info can be referenced, as here. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 14:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per TNT and, if no additional sources exist, maybe GNG - there's no clear reason why we can't have a list of episodes (considering it is a valid article for other shows with sourcing), but the current sourcing is awful, and the format with the scores appears to violate original research. SportingFlyer T· C 20:18, 9 July 2023 (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.