Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of QI episodes

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of QI episodes

(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 guests or winners of individual game show episodes. Article contents fall under WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT. Details contained within <ref> coding in the Series section are merely anecdotes or details about episodes—not links to sources that provide verification of score data presented in tables.

This is not a series with fictional plot synopses that should be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a game show episode do not meet WP:GNG. Results of an individual episode of a game show are seldom notable, and rarely covered in any independent source except maybe on fansites. 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) 13:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) AldezD (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because each individual season of a game show does not fall under WP:EPISODE, WP:GNG or WP:N, and the entirety of details contained with in each individual season are unsourced:

AldezD (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Comparing QI to quiz shows such as Deal or No Deal and Figure It Out is totally disingenuous and a false attempt at bolstering the argument as they are entirely different programmes. The content of these articles may be poorly sourced but that in itself is not a reason to delete. These are excellent, informative articles that improve Wikipedia with their existence. Deleting them serves no purpose. violet/riga _^[talk] 14:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are nothing more than recaps of panel games. The extraordinary level of detail within each episode falls under WP:CRUFT and does not meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE. AldezD (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what your opinion is, I just await an explanation as to how this project would benefit from such deletions. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hang on a minute, don't we list all the HIGNFY episodes, who appeared, who won, etc? And don't we recap episode storylines in countless drama series in a similar way to what is done here? I don't personally think WP:EPISODE is a valid reason to delete here. That would only apply if someone decided to make an article for every single episode, rather than for each series. I tend to agree that comparing this to shows such as Deal or No Deal is misleading. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful article for people to use. I, for example, enjoy QI, and using this article I can easily find and choose an episode to watch based on the guests present. It is a useful article, all the important information (episode/guests) is correct, and as such there is no reason whatsoever to remove it. Speverendrooner 17:33, 7 September 2013 (BST)

WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep. This does not address WP:GNG, WP:EPISODE, and WP:CRUFT. AldezD (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Violet/Riga. These bundled nominations are often misguided, comparing apples with oranges. QI is easily notable and so are the episodes that make up the series. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no linked sources within the articles nominated that provide criteria for individual episodes of this show to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, there is an extraordinary level of WP:CRUFT in these nominated articles. AldezD (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Violet/Riga QI is not a conventional game show. The entries have been checked by people who work on the show and are deemed accurate. The articles are a useful resource for people catching up with the series (such as those who live in the USA, where it has only just become available legitimately) and for people wanting to check out what topics were covered. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is the availability of resources such as this, which cannot readily be found elsewhere. That's why there are no linked sources. Wikipedia is itself the resource. Guinevere50 (talk) 1:14, 7 September 2013 (EST)
Keep The nominator's rationale is a fair one, and obviously concerns about sourcing need to be addressed. However, I'm not entirely sure that I agree that this article fails to meet WP:GNG simply on the basis of QI not being a fictional series and its episodes not "advancing" the show. We have many lists on Wikipedia of episodes of non-fictional TV series, some of which have even been featured (e.g. List of Meerkat Manor episodes, List of Chartjackers episodes, and, for better or worse, List of QI episodes itself). Personally, I consider these articles more of a boon to Wikipedia than a hindrance, hence why I would prefer to see them kept. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's something quite bizarre in nominating a featured list for deletion. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while I think the article might need a few tweaks to remain worthy of its featured list status (I notice some blank references, etc), I don't see any reason Wikipedia would be a better place for its deletion. It's a useful reference point for people wanting to catch up on the episodes, which are regularly repeated and released on DVD. This isn't a "game show" in the same vein as the other cited by the nominator, but a comedy panel show, which implies AldezD didn't know anything about the show before nominating. Nobody wins £500 or an Austin Metro at the end. Bob talk 20:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a useful article about a popular programme. The information in the pages is very hard to find elsewhere. QI is not a game show, it is a comedy quiz that provides interesting little-known information about people, places and ideas, and debunks common misconceptions. It's often hard to remember which QI episode contained a particular piece of information, and these pages can be used to look it up - which makes them very useful. --Madang1965 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the keep rationales given above. Rankersbo (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep this is a nomination that is absurd and forces me to question the WP:COMPETENCE of the nominator. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also see this similar AfD from the same user. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep this is a useful article and the programme is popular. The information is difficult to find elsewhere. These pages are used to find certain episodes or to find a certain guest can be very useful - I'd question the WP:COMPETENCE of the nominator who seems to have a vendetta against episode lists - I'd point out this other AFD too. I agree with the comment above - how is WP supposed to benefit from this article being deleted. Adrianw9 (talk) 16:34, 12 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.