Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BSkyB (Plans for DTT)


 * 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 delete.  Majorly  (o rly?) 12:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BSkyB (Plans for DTT)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed Prod. This article fails WP:NOT - Wikipedia policy WP:NOT states that Wikipedia should not have an article for an event if it is not almost certain it will take place. Neither British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) have confirmed that a service will be launching on digital terrestrial television and Ofcom have not recieved anything from BSkyB indicating it will launch a serivce. A press release of a proposed launch and a statement by Ofcom is not proof that BSkyB will be launching a service on digital terrestrial television. The service does not even have a name. The proposed service by BSkyB may not launch, hence why I bring this article to AfD. If a service is confirmed to launch, the article should be re-created with reliable sources. There is also consensus from two other editors on the talk page that the article should be deleted on these grounds. At the moment, all the references and text in the article is pure speculation and therefore fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. tgheretford (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep — A quick look brought me to this, that to me is good enough. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - all that article states is that Ofcom will start a consultation if BSkyB approaches them to launch a service, it does not state that BSkyB are launching a service. Any launch would require the approval of Ofcom, which they haven't given because BSkyB hasn't asked to launch the service. --tgheretford (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good enough for me, considering the length of the article I see no reason why it does not justify its self. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge anything useful or verifiable with British Sky Broadcasting. I don't see any reason for this to have a separate article. 23skidoo 14:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is looking increasingly like a publicity stunt on the part of BSkyB as a spoiler to the launch of Virgin Media, a negotiating tactic with Top Up Tv, and scare tactic for Freeview. 2-3 weeks have now passed and by all accounts no application has been made to Ofcom, BSkyB's "timetable" is increasingly optimistic. The unlikiness, is further added to by BSkyB, at the same time, asking Ofcom to review Top Up TV's access charges.  Why do they need a review of that if they are launching their own services?
 * IMHO, it is not the place of Wikipedia to fight proxy wars for BSkyB. Even, if such a service launches, the article would need rewriting from scratch anyway, as so much is speculative or depending on regualtory approval (use of MPEG4 in wild, mix of MPEG2 and 4 on one mux, >3 Sky services on Mux C, possible competition implications?, etc.) or approval from DTT partners (such as NGW, who need to ask for mux terms to be varied to carry pay services (despite last year's changes) and have even recently indicated what could be intreted as opposition to pay services). Pit-yacker 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is all highly speculative and not suitable for wikipedia. This reads like a news report, plenty of tv websites will cover this anyway if it happensand its certainly not encyclopedical. I think the most appropriate action is to add this to the main BSkyB artcle as a topic on there, it does not warrant its own entry. PrincessBrat 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete until such time as there's something to say. Deb 12:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per MatthewFenton. - Nick C 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.