Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big in Japan (format)


 * 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. Nothing worth merging. JohnCD (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Big in Japan (format)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The format of the show is not notable, the shows themselves are notable. Unreferenced and I can find no sources for this. Ridernyc (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC) a
 * Keep if this is a TV show and sources are cited. But rename.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the article it's not a TV show. It's the concept that became I Survived a Japanese game show. As far as I can tell there is no show called Big in Japan. 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. If there are sources that talk about the concept as a concept, then we probably should keep it. But if we just have examples of the show type, then the application of a term to describe them is synthesis, and we should delete. Not sure where I fall on this one, but I'll look into it. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to I Survived a Japanese Game Show, the title under which the show was broadcast. There is already a significant article there, including description of the Swedish, Norwegian, and Portuguese versions. Cnilep (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's likely this is the working name for the show when it was being deleveloped, but it was broadcast as I Survived a Japanese Game Show. This article has no references, and the show article actually has a format section that is better developed than this article.  As such, I don't see any reason to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (1) not notable (2) not sourced --Bejnar (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2010 (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.