Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whittle (game show)

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 article remains completely unsourced (or rather, not reliably sourced) after three weeks of AfD, which makes deletion mandatory per WP:V, a core policy. We simply do not keep unsourced content that is not sourced in a reasonable time after being challenged. Sandstein 16:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whittle (game show)

Whittle (game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This looks an obvious candidate to be redirected to Everybody's Equal since the only differences between the two shows are the title, host and numbers; they are the same show. Do we need a separate article, or am I missing something? Launchballer 22:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. 08:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)-PATH SLOPU (TALK) 08:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/ Alternate redirect or merge (see below): I cannot agree to redirect one unsourced article to another unsourced article even though it would reduce maintenance. If there is some sourcing I would be agreeable to a merge/redirect but sourcing through the "External links" is not acceptable to me. Otr500 (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Yes, the article is unsourced, but having Googled it, it seems to be notable enough to have an article, and I'm sure we will find reliable sources for it. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: This is a 2006 article and I didn't find any reliable sources so maybe "someone" can prove there are sources. Since you seem to have found something please share it. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so there should be something per WP:TVSERIES. Otr500 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Every other British game show has an article so this must as well. Crocodile Dippy 2 15:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far I disagree with all three of you. Otr500, the absence of sourcing does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist and is not a valid reason to delete. Crocodile Dippy 2, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an even less valid argument. Foxnpichu I disagree with you less, but I would argue that both articles are short and unlikely to be expanded, and thus could be merged per WP:ATD-M.--Launchballer 14:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to draw up an idea (in my head) which we can agree on. I'm just not sure where to start. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: That other stuff exists has continually been argued as reason to keep articles (even now) and just as continuously argued as poor reasoning. I have not looked at "Every other British game show" on Wikipedia, that may have just flown under the radar. This is not merely a very poorly sourced article it is considered unsourced, yet... improperly sourced through "External links". I could not find any sources so actually sought out if someone else would. The best reply is that just because a source can not be found does not mean it does not exist, and a resulting "keep" !vote. This could be argued on every article on Wikipedia as a reason to keep or as an alternative to deletion. WP:Notability still "requires verifiable evidence" through reliable sources. A "game show" is produced through an organization so should follow Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and/or Wikipedia:Notability (media) that discusses notability in depth. Considering that we like something is generally ineffective. "Ignoring the rules" should only be used on the basis that the policies and guidelines hamper improvement to Wikipedia. Short of that consensus is generally regarded as a "process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies" and is backed by more than local consensus. In this case I do not see how allowing an unsourced article on a game show improves Wikipedia. Question @ User:Crocodile Dippy 2 and User:Foxnpichu: Are there no reliable sources to back up the article, not even one confirming notability? Otr500 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500 Well, I have found these: [1] [2] [3]. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source as anyone can edit it, Adamnostalgia.wordpress.com is one person's blog. Neither constitute reliable sources. Not sure about UKGameshows.com. I would argue UK Gameshows.com is a reliable source as it is apparently good enough for The Guardian and The Times - what else have you got?--Launchballer 17:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is certainly not reliable. I don't totally agree on the reliability of the source UK Gameshows.com and a discussion almost three 1/2 years ago gave doubts on the editorial oversight. It is being used as a source (sometimes) and as an "External link" (sometimes) but I feel the general acceptability as a reliable source on notability (over content sourcing) is still questioned. This could be re-evaluated if someone wishes to use the link as a sole basis for stand-alone status bit I don't think it can be considered significant coverage. Unless or until this is solved the site would likely not be contested when used for content. Here is a problem: If a closer decides there is no consensus or a close keep, for whatever reasoning with 1 redirect, 1 keep, and 1 delete/alt redirect/merge (the one keep simply referencing other stuff as reasoning likely will not count) it will just delay someone else bringing it up again. One source does not raise the bar of notability above any threshold to pass GNG or Wikipedia:TVSERIES. I have added "redirect"/ "merge" as alternatives until there is clarification on UK Gameshows.com. Otr500 (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know these aren't reliable, but there are quite a few forums regarding the show, meaning people must remember it. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm... This discussion seems to have died, and we are still unsure what to make of the article. Should we close this as No Consensus or hold off for a bit? Foxnpichu (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2019 (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.