Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Have I Got News for You episodes (2nd nomination)

List of Have I Got News for You episodes

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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:YOUTUBE 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]

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)[reply]