Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football Today


 * 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. After over a month, there are still no reliable sources in the article. I will be willing to userfy this upon request should someone wish to expand the article further. Nakon 19:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Football Today

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable.. fails WP:BCAST and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:BCAST is the criteria for broadcast media, not for TV shows. The criteria for TV Shows is WP:TVSHOW which this show easily meets being aired on national cable TV channels, in multiple countries including Sportsnet World in Canada. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You did read the part where it says "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience", didn't you? Those sources should be found first. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 02:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * More definitive perhaps, but not only criteria. No lack of sources about it airing in Canada on Sportsnet World, and on Setanta Canada over the years. Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep Meets WP:TVSHOW notability.--Sammanhumagain (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - How? There is a complete lack of reliable sources... JMHamo (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than 10-years of TV listings ... Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Sybest 7 7  Talk to Me / Contributions 20:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Sybest 7 7  Talk to Me / Contributions 20:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC) When on Earth did I say that Screenshots are reliable source? Those grabs are from the sources I cited, I did so because you're being ignorant, seriously I told you to have a look at the sources, and you didn't, Dykes works for Premier League Productions and his Twitter account is verified, why do you think was it verified? Because he sold Bananas at Wall Street? Those tweets specify that Football Today exists, and look at the schedule of SportsNet, it clearly says Football Today, and look at Dykes' website's About section, it clearly says that he works for Premier League TV, and Mark Pougtach's account is verified too, why do you think is it? And search, "Football Today Premier League", you'll be prompted. AND STOP BEING IGNORANT. Sybest 7 7  Talk to Me / Contributions 17:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't the usual 'sports pundits around a table burning a half hour talking about football' format, but pretty much meets the definition of an infomercial about the Premier League which broadcasters can take at their leisure; NBCSN doesn't pick it up for the US, and I'm sure it's taken by other broadcasters merely to fill timeslots rather than as highlight programming for their schedule. I don't deny WP:TVSHOW, but there's many of these shows I wouldn't create an article on around the television schedule which are superficial looks at their leagues or players; judging from G-hits, many would have the same view.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Normally I wouldn't care less about these things, but since I've significantly contributed to the article, I worked hard to find some sources, and have found some too.
 * Comment - These are WP:ROUTINE citations and are not about the TV show itself. JMHamo (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The tweets include the name of the show and you'll read about Football Today just at the third line of Dykes' official website. But if you want another, There you go, if you want to search of Football Today just press if CTRL+G if your surfing with Firefox and if you're using an iOS device just use search in page feature (type the word in the address bar) unfortunately I haven't been able to find such feature in Note 4.
 * Comment Tweets are not a Reliable Source and we shouldn't expect readers to have to preform a page search in order to establish notability. Completely wrong. JMHamo (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The accounts of Mark and John are verified accounts, so they're reliable sources. You're just being ignorant. I've uploaded two pictures on imgur, as I wasn't allowed to upload it on Wikipedia. Here they are. Sybest 7 7  Talk to Me / Contributions 15:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, have a read of WP:SOURCES, screen grabs are not reliable sources. JMHamo (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)·
 * Have a read of WP:CIVIL too. We need more than passing mentions of this. There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject JMHamo (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Delete. Notability hasn't been established. The article is entirely unsourced and the sources identified in this discussion are not sufficient to establish notability or to have an adequately sourced article. --Michig (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2015 (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.