Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Game TV

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. Administrative judgment call here: the topic is notable enough per coverage. This alone should satisfy GNG. This article needs help, clearly. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Game TV[edit]

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

'Delete - Non noteable TV show with insignificant viewership Dutyscenee (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a TV Channel not a show. Although substantially a member of the Sky EPG dross channels, I seem to remember it was also carried overnight on mainstream channels such as ITV. The phrase "after a spate of bad press for the call-tv industry" doesn't really do the subject justice. The channel was investigiated by the police for fraud. Although the investigation was later dropped due to "lack of evidence" on which to base charges. There is plenty of coverage of the subject for this reason alone.

It was one of a number of channels that popped up (see also the likes of Quiz Call and ITV Play) that became controversial for seeming to rip people off with all but impossible premium rate phone in games. Other channels were reprimanded by the regulator, Ofcom (e.g. See ITV Play's pretty famous Rawl plugs being something you would find in a woman's hand bag [1] ). Big Game appears (IMO) to have got off a reprimand because the police had seized their recordings and so consequently Ofcom couldn't assess the case (see [2]. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that Quiz Call and ITV Play appear to have gained significant enough press coverage from the controversy (and some independent of the controversy) to pass the notability guidelines, whereas Big Game TV appears to only be mentioned amongst lists of many. The notability of other channels/shows is irrelevant to establishing the notability of this one. No coverage in it's own right. That it is mentioned amongst others in this way may merit a mention in the relevant section of Quiz channel for example, but no notable standalone coverage should mean no standalone article. Delete. Rubiscous (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge somewhere?) as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2011 (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.