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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE, WP:N and WP:IINFO. No sources for tables of information containing results of individual game show episodes. List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes#Chaser records section contains tables of WP:OR manual calculations based upon earlier unreferenced information.

This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that should be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet WP:GNG. Results of an individual episode of a game show are seldomly notable, and rarely covered in any independent source except maybe on fansites. Top-prize winners may sometimes get media coverage and merit mention in the main article, but this is not the case in this article.

Information on individual game show episodes is sub-trivial and not instrumental to understanding the topic in the manner that fictional/dramatized TV series episodes are.

Game show episodes do not develop or advance the show in any way. Episodes that do stand out (introduction of a new game feature, special guest, etc.) are best noted in the main series article as part of its history.

Related deletion discussions of episode listings for game shows:

AldezD (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with this list of episodes as a page. There are thousands of other "lists of" shows including shows like Red or Black?, Have I Got News For You, 8 Out of 10 Cats, Fake Reaction, Million Pound Drop, Grand Designs - not all of these are hugely popular and successful - however they are still noted. A lot of work and time has gone into creating these over the years and these statistics are in neat, not overpopulated tables with regards to WP:IINFO, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed this states that "if the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information.". As seen in all the pages above - this is like the rest and it has been created to list the statistics rather than use space on the main article. Statistics and "Chaser Records" are commonly seen and used, and even mentioned in the show itself so it seems counterproductive to remove these. I would like to point out with WP:N - articles require "Significant coverage"" which applies, "Reliable" - the source is a TV show broadcasted which is directly reliable, sources are NOT required to be available online. As with all the TV episode tables linked above - a reference is not needed for these.

Adrianw9 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is essentially WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Vast listings of game show episode results—which in and of themselves are no different than any other episode within that series—do not meet WP:GNG, and is not what WP:EPISODE is intended to cover as this show does not feature any fictional elements or plot synopses to summarize. Overall records can be included in the main page if you use Template:Cite episode; however, that is entirely different than listing the result of every single episode of a game show. AldezD (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your argument is essentially WP:UNRS. The only reason you don't like this is because there is no hard web reference on here. If you see all the pages above - they all have long lists of results (some rather extensive) and they are not a problem. The tables are collapsible and not extensive. I have no idea why this is such a problem after four years. Adrianw9 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument for deletion is clearly stated in the paragraphs above and is not WP:UNRS. This article is filled with detail that violates WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#STATS, WP:EPISODE and WP:GNG. AldezD (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I cannot find how this violates all these rules so badly! For example, your WP:IINFO so called Violation says "consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists", which has been done neatly. Whether it is important is a matter of your opinion. You've repeated the same example in WP:NOT#STATS. I would say this doesn't violate the WP:EPISODE because it receives fair coverage - take viewers: we list extensive tables for 8 Out of 10 Cats, when it receives half the viewers as The Chase! Adrianw9 (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont want to sound too much like "ILIKEIT" but I hage been looking at these tables for years and I've even seen contestrsnts mention stats from here on the show! Its a popular page, neatly presented and a popular programme. Pww901 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic list! - Fails WP:GNG & WP:LISTCRUFT.-→Davey2010→→Talk→ 19:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given in the nomination. Edison (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source in the entire page, and that just deals with the release of taping tickets. Otherwise this sounds like the AfD's the nom listed as examples; complicated way to tell us 'these people won' and 'these people lost' and better on another site than here. Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial information, completely unencyclopedic to descend to this level of excessive detail. Unsourced and probably completely unsourceable from reliable, 3rd-party sources. AldezD has already set out the alphabet soup of problems with this article, so I won't repeat the shortcuts. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Maybe the information in the article could be moved to another website? Perhaps to a smaller wiki such as one of the alternative outlets listed here, or maybe to a forum or personal weblog. Be careful to follow the requirements imposed by the CC-BY-SA license. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft, though I think the statistics in the "Chaser records" might serve some encyclopaedic purpose, so could be merged back to the show's main article. –anemone projectors– 15:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually deletion followed by a partial merge would not work for GFDL reasons. However, a redirect with a partial merge would be just fine. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, especially as that section has been edited in this list. I notice that GFDL wasn't respected when splitting this article from the main one though. –anemone projectors– 14:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The chaser/contestant records section contains large amounts of WP:IINFO. There are currently 18 separate criteria listed. At what point does adding additional criteria/measurements stop, and what are you suggesting to be merged back into the main article that doesn't fall under WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#STATS? Also, each of the records would need to be sourced using Template:Cite episode with the episode date. AldezD (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If all of it falls under WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#STATS then none of it should be merged. I just thought those particular stats (specifically in the "Chaser records" section) might be encyclopaedic. I don't see them as indiscriminate information, but as an overall summary of the entire show. Probably only the first four or five columns are needed. These columns are for the entire programme so the source is actually every episode that has ever been broadcast. Obviously 419 citations in a row is ridiculous. –anemone projectors– 17:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it would require 419 citations because no-one else has compiled these statistics and recorded them in a reliable third-party source, then those stats too are not worth keeping or merging elsewhere (for the alphabet soup of reasons already given), are in reality unverifiable and are probably pure original research. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, unless someone actually has compiled this information elsewhere in a reliable third-party source. I'm not going to try to find out though, so that small piece of information probably won't be merged. –anemone projectors– 15:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful, encyclopedic information. I would not oppose a merger or movement, however, but I would oppose deletion.--Laun chba ller 16:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to keep WP:UNSOURCED/WP:CRUFT articles. 00:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Useful and interesting information. L1v3rp00l (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL/WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep WP:UNSOURCED/WP:CRUFT articles. 00:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Closer may wish to note that the nominator's WP:COMPETENCE has been questioned in similar AFD proposals. Hippogriph62 (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I don't comment on editors but you're right, that is unbelievable. Changing vote to speedy keep on that basis.--Laun chba ller 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nothing more than unsourced listrcruft of episodes of a conventional game show. Other than the results of straight Q&A segments, there are no elements that differ from one episode to another. There are no panelists that change from week to week, no special segments, no comedic elements, no creative storytelling, etc. AldezD (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really understand what the nominator finds so wrong about these lists - yes, they may be seen as excessive but WP:EPISODE encourages this kind of thing. We shouldn't need to provide 300+ sources for each single result and I do question the nominators WP:COMPETENCE, from articles that are slightly similar (accepted they are different genre shows) like similar AFD. These both have lists of episodes too. I also don't particularly appreciate every argument to "keep" being belittled by the nominator - one of the points of WP is to provide useful and interesting information, so just to brand every one of these as WP:ILIKEIT is unfair. We are pefectly clear of the nominator's reasons. I'd like to know how WP is supposed to benefit from this article's deletion too. Changing to speedy keep.Adrianw9 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPISODE states that "All articles on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, which state that…A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, and the entire article is entirely unreferenced. The guidelines also state that "While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page…Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory." This article is nothing more than WP:LISTCRUFT, and falls under WP:NOT#STATS, WP:IINFO. Individual episodes of game shows do not meet criteria in WP:GNG.

Additionally, if you have questions or concerns as to my WP:COMPETENCE, open up a discussion at WP:ANI. Comments such as that—which are not directly related to the deletion discussion of this specific article—do not belong in an AfD. AldezD (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware of your point of view, thank you very much. I don't need you to repeat yourself again. We will work to add a couple of references but unless you can find a rule that says that every single thing in a table needs to be sourced, then my vote remains to keep. I would describe the article content as significant coverage when 3million people+ watch it when it is broadcast on a popular TV channel. Where are we supposed to get references from? They aren't needed on HIGNFY or QI episode lists. I'm not arguing again on this. Adrianw9 (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A show with high ratings does not constitute "significant coverage" for statistics for individual game show episode results. Yes, the show is a hit—but that does not mean an episode listing of a multiple series game show meets WP:GNG, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Significant coverage would be these individual episodes being described in detail on independent, verifiable and sourced websites. Simply having a television show watched by millions does not automatically validate the tables upon tables of unreferenced information. AldezD (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps rather than continuing to conflict on this an option could simply be to merge back to the original page rather than have it separate. It seemed fine there before - I created the page because perhaps the stats deserved a separate page under WP:IINFO but it seems a lot simpler to merge this article back. Especially the Chaser records section which I think is a worthy contribution. Perhaps as per WP:LISTCRUFT we get rid of the long episode results lists, and then place the summary tables back in the original article. Adrianw9 (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This information does not meet WP:GNG based upon the guidelines linked above, and it does not belong in the main article, either. If you're adding chaser records for individual episodes, use Template:Cite episode, but aggregate individual chaser performances over a period of time/series of episodes using manual calculations based on unreferenced data should not be included. AldezD (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is encyclopaedic and has notable information.--82.45.79.122 (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the information notable? Has it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? –anemone projectors– 15:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uncited needs to be worked on but this information is useful. Further more I fail to see the difference between this and other episode lists - List_of_Have_I_Got_News_for_You_episodes or List_of_Top_Gear_Episodes or List_of_Doctor_Who_serials etc. etc. Porochaz (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. List of Doctor Who serials and List of Top Gear episodes are pages that detail episode information of plot-driven or documentary television series with individual episodes that meet guidelines in WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE (speicifically, the plots/documentary subjects of these episodes are detailed and covered in periodicals like TV Guide, other online programming guides, etc.). List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes is an aggregation of unsourced statistics for individual game show episodes that are not detailed in similar television programming guides or other independent sources. AldezD (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Have I Got News For You? Porochaz (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Have I Got News For You? (specifically), WP:OTHERSTUFF. The reason for deletion of List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes is that the article does not meet WP:GNG, and the content of the article is WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:OR, WP:NOT#STATS. AldezD (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Or we could just put this back on the Chase UK's page, Tipping Point also suffered the same fate.86.30.111.102 (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete per WP:LISTN. Obviously a lot of work has gone into creating the content, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to meet the encyclopedic content guidelines. Much of the information is unverified, resulting in original research. A full merge doesn't seem viable, as the extensive content would then be undue. Perhaps a selective merge would then result in the list being redirected, preserving its history in case anyone thinks that could be used later. -- Trevj (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the main article and redirect to it. According to the edit summary upon creation of this page, even the creator was sure of whether it was a good idea to split it off (requested discussion on talk page which never happened), so the best option here is to just merge it back in. Technical 13 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.