Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Fifteen to One

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. Sandstein 19:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Fifteen to One[edit]

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

Celebrity Fifteen to One is not an independent television program; it's merely a special week of shows of Fifteen to One that has aired sporadically.

WP:NOTINHERITED, and a handful of special episodes over the course of a season are not notable enough to warrant an entirely separate article. AldezD (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion is similar to other "special week" game show episode lists, such as Celebrity Jeopardy! and Jeopardy! Kids Week.

As is the wording of the previous nominations. Keep: Easily meets WP:GNG. Considerable standalone coverage ([1][2][3]), many of which are recent ([4][5][6]). I should note that the AfDs you quote from are from nearly five years ago, and our notability guidelines have become more lenient since then. Finally, and this is fairly minor, but so far 12 episodes have been broadcast in five different years. Not a week...--Laun chba ller 17:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Launchballer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I haven't looked at the Celebrity Jeopardy! articles, so I have no idea if it is worth reinstation of those.--Laun chba ller 09:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fifteen to One. Contra Launchballer, I do not believe our notability guidelines have loosened over the past five years. But this isn't really a question of notability; there are unquestionably reliable sources that cover these specials. Rather, this is a question of topic identification: are special-edition variants of a longer-running TV show separate things unto themselves or are they part of the parent entity? I'm not certain that has a single correct answer in all cases, but here, at least, I believe the readers are better served with a single cohesive article. For the record, I hold the same opinion for the various branded Jeopardy! specials, and consider the precedent AFDs correctly decided. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that in autumn 2013, AldezD and BenTvfan were removing Celebrity episode info from shows like The Chase, Pointless, Who Wants to be a Millionaire and Tipping Point, shows where there were concurrent civilian programmes citing WP:NOTSTATS and FANCRUFT AND LISTCRUFT. Why should we allow a page for Fifteen to One and not for the other shows. Some of these programmes have celebrity versions that are approximately the same length as Celebrity Fifteen to One. Also, using Vimeo snd YouTube links are risky for sources as they are copyrighted. What if Youtube takes it down, there is no more source. This is just observations66.130.12.185 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

On some weeks, the week's five civilian episodes have attained less viewers than the single celebrity edition at the end of the week. I believe that Celebrity Fifteen to One should have its own page because its history is a bit more expansive than that of Pointless Celebrities or Tipping Point: Lucky Stars, and as the Wikipedia article for Fifteen to One is significantly longer, I believe that including the information there would make the article too long. (As for my notability comments, my contributions history includes a several year break and in that break I have found that the threshold for articles passing AfC/surviving AfD has decreased since I've got back.)--Laun chba ller 23:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not independently notable, covered by Fifteen to One. No long entry is needed there, so WP:UNDUE shouldn't apply. --Bejnar (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 6 October 2015 (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.