Template:Did you know nominations/It's Not Me, It's You (game show)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
It's Not Me, It's You (game show)
[edit]... that It's Not Me, It's You was originally commissioned for an hour?
Created by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 23:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC).
- Launchballer - I question whether or not this is actually notable enough for an article after just one episode? Are tellymix.com and UKGameshows.com considered reliable sources? the fourth one is a primary source by the channel itself and the first one (Digital spy) is basically a press release "it's coming". I am just not seeing how this passes the General Notability Guideline? MPJ-DK 23:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea what policy he was quoting, but apparently being a weekly show on a national TV channel is an indication of notability. It's late in my country, but later on I'll have a look.--Launchballer 23:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Launchballer So the policy that "he" (that would be me, please don't talk past me like I am beneath you) refers to is just one of the foundations of WIkipedia - articles must be notable, if you don't know it then I can reccomend it as nighttime read. You want another link from "that guy"? How about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, so that does not really convince me that this should stay. Please try to remain civil and perhaps not so defensive? MPJ-DK 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- You have misinterpreted my message. Please read "he" as "the IP"; if you follow the link I have provided, it will take you to an edit made by an IP deprodding an article I had prodded, with his/her rationale being that "being a weekly show on a national TV channel is an indication of notability". Again, I have no idea where that idea was obtained, but I wasn't talking past you, and I think I had better go to bed to avoid causing further offence! I will have another look for sources in the morning.--Launchballer 00:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Launchballer Ah shoot, I totally took that wrong, I apologize for my own uncivility. MPJ-DK 00:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Even so, I wonder about the notability. There aren't any reviews, as MPJ-DK notes the Digital Spy source has sparse detail about the (then) forthcoming show, tellymix.com strikes me as a very dubious source (the page about the Writers is filled with grammatical issues, which is highly unprofessional), and the rest are primary sources. Indeed, the bulk of the article is Launchballer's description of what he saw, and the format seems to be changing from episode to episode (based on the first two episodes), which does not inspire confidence in the format assumptions being made. At the moment, even if the IP is right about notability—which I think is open to question—this isn't ready for main page highlighting via DYK without far better sourcing than is currently provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here's another few sources. The two episodes I've seen are on Demand 5; would you like links to the articles?--Launchballer 12:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Launchballer, as the hook is dependent on the tellymix source that I found very dubious for the reasons expressed, and you haven't even tried to convinced me that it is reliable, this nomination is still not ready and its one hook is in doubt. (It also isn't very interesting: if it was originally commissioned for an hour, so what? Most people won't know that broadcast episodes run 45 minutes, so they'll have no basis for comparison. Please try for a truly interesting hook.) Regarding the new sources, the first two were added in Background and deal with occurrences prior to the show (and unrelated to it), and don't establish notability for this show. The ChronicleLive source, which at first glance would seem to be exactly what I was asking for in terms of reviews, reads like a fanboy gushing about Vicki Pattison. I'm not knowledgeable about the British press: is ChronicleLive a reliable source (an offshoot, perhaps, of a magazine or television show)? If it is, then it should be included, but probably not more than you already have. As for the Demand 5 articles, as they're primary sources, they won't help notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- ChronicleLive is a local paper representing Pattison's home turf, the North East, and owned by Trinity Mirror. Most of the press coverage for the show gushes even more violently about the two team captains "Kelly Brook smoulders as she finishes filming It's Not Me, It's You" is the contents of most of them. The Express reviewed the last episode; while it's not a reliable source for fact, I'm happy to take the reviewer's opinion as valid.
- ALT1: ... that It's Not Me, It's You has been described as a "more formal Celebrity Juice"? or
- ALT2: ... It's Not Me, It's You? (I reckon readers will want to know what's them.)--Launchballer 18:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Launchballer, thanks for removing that tellymix source. I've struck the original hook. (Did you notice that the Duke review says the show is 45 minutes, while the Baylis review says half an hour?) ALT1 really isn't interesting to most people; it might be a bit interesting to people who know Celebrity Juice, but I feel that we can't base a hook off of how the network (or is BT an online rebroadcaster, like Hulu?) describes a show in its own listing. It's a biased source trying to hype its own program. As for the ALT2 hook, it's more April Fools' Day fodder, because it depends on misrepresenting the article title (which should be in italics since it's a television show), something that's only allowed for April 1 hooks. Would you want this to be an April Fools' Day hook (which would mean nearly a nine month wait), or would you prefer to suggest other hooks? The one thing you haven't mentioned is that this is a dating-themed show; that might be able to be worked into something reasonably interesting along with the show's title. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, why didn't you say so? I'm autistic, so dating is very uninteresting to me. I wrote/watch this because I like panel shows. I did notice the Baylis inaccuracy, which was why I was so reticent to use it initially, but I think he may have got half-hour from being the same advertisers' anathema that I am; skipping the commercials. BT, for the purposes of that source, isn't really a network, rather a television platform like Freeview (UK). Would ALT3:
... It's Not Me, It's You?solve that problem, and if not ALT4: ... that It's Not Me, It's You sees Kelly Brook and Vicky Pattison interacting with potential dates using a live video Tinder-style swipe screen?--Launchballer 11:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)- BlueMoonset What's another name for a call-and-lose contest? It comes across as a bit grumpy but I can't think what they're supposed to be called. (As it transpires, both Duke and Baylis were right - episode 5's been reduced to half an hour.)--Launchballer 12:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: All of your alternate hooks were linking to a completely unrelated album, rather than the game show they were supposed to be linking to. I have changed the link targets. Pppery (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Launchballer, I think ALT3 would only fly as an April Fool's hook (I'm not sure whether ALT2 would be allowed even for that day). You could try a non-April Fool's version by adding a regular "that" before it, but I kind of doubt that would pass muster. As for ALT4, the hook material comes from a primary source, and my assumption is that "Tinder-style swipe screen" is your own characterization, and hence not acceptable—if it came from a secondary source description, then it could be if properly cited. As for "call-and-lose contest", I have no idea what it is. Sorry I can't help you with that. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- ALT5: ... that It's Not Me, It's You? Tinder-style swipe screen is a truncated form of "live video Tinder-style game on a giant swipe screen". As for call-and-lose contest, one of these.--Launchballer 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: All of your alternate hooks were linking to a completely unrelated album, rather than the game show they were supposed to be linking to. I have changed the link targets. Pppery (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset What's another name for a call-and-lose contest? It comes across as a bit grumpy but I can't think what they're supposed to be called. (As it transpires, both Duke and Baylis were right - episode 5's been reduced to half an hour.)--Launchballer 12:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here's another few sources. The two episodes I've seen are on Demand 5; would you like links to the articles?--Launchballer 12:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Launchballer:Your ALT5 hook links to the wrong target again. I jusgt fixed the target Pppery (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Launchballer, if a fact isn't properly sourced in the article, you can't use it for the hook. Instead of giving me an external link, you've been at DYK long enough to know that you should be including that web page as an inline source citation in the article for that particular phrase, and being sure it's not so close as to be a copyvio. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to opine and check on the ALT4 and ALT5 hooks, and whether the sources given for the latter is sufficient (it's certainly better than have the show be its own source, as was previously the case), and for the article as a whole. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The article was new enough when first proposed, and long enough; all non-lead paragraphs have citations, no copyvio or close paraphrasing (Earwig’s flawed analysis and problems with block quotes noted). QPQ has been completed. ALT5 doesn’t qualify under DYK rules, lacking any source citation. ALT4 is concise enough at 141 characters, though a little difficult to follow, but the source for the hook is a promotional webpage for the show’s lighting contractor, so a first cousin to a primary source, not quite independent. Which brings us to the general sourcing issues: while it may be possible to find more independent, reliable sources, as this article stands today (nearly 3 months after its initial DYK nomination, and well after the entire first season of the show is completed) there are only 3 sources which appear to be independent, and none of those three discuss It’s Not Me, It’s You' in any depth, though one could almost count as a review of one of the show’s stars. The remaining sources are all primary, including the video episodes and an interview with one star. Launchballer has made a valiant effort to produce an article out of an impoverishment of good sources, and I can only observe the wisdom of that old saw about a silk purse out of sow’s ears. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
