Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeIN Sports (Australia)

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. Kurykh (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN Sports (Australia)[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Given the nominator has only written 'advertising' as a reason for deletion I'm struggling to understand the nomination. It is a nationally distributed channel so it meets WP:BCAST and is covered in reliable sources easily passing GNG. I see the article as being written in a neutral tone and it doesn't contain typical advertising traits such as a television guide or links to subscription/sign-up pages. It contains detail on the history of the channel (its former name and operator), detail of its rebranding, expansion and content in line with encyclopaedic tone and layout. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read the article? It is in fact not much more then a list of sportrights a dn, in the section "Availability", where you can get it. The Banner talk 22:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course I read it. It is highly usual for articles on cable channels to include programming and availability information. In any event, the topics meets notability as I explained above so there is no basis for deletion. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence for notability from reliable sources is provided. It appears to be advertising only.--Grahame (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in plenty of RS: SMH: [1] [2], The Oz: [3] [4] [5] Trade publishers: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], international: [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whats new? (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As with the other BeIN noms, this is a bad faith nom; has obvious heavy pay carriage in Australia. Nate • (chatter) 04:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: easily meets criteria listed in WP:BCAST for notability. musimax. (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:BROADCAST.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 22 February 2017 (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.