Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UKGameshows.com (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

UKGameshows.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Article subject is merely about a non-notable game show fansite that is not affiliated with the production of any television program. Fails WP:GNG.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability (web) states that a site is notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and states that coverage must be more than "trivial coverage" (i.e., newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site all constitute "trivial coverage"). UKgameshows.com fails to meet these guidelines since the links from Yahoo and the Times in the Recognition section of the article that mention UKGameshows.com match the description for "trivial coverage."  Sottolacqua  (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I broadly agree with the outcome of the last AfD. Coverage from The Times, Yahoo's top five finds on the web, and the various mentions that show up in Google Books, combined with the longevity of the site, is enough for me. The fact that it is not affiliated with any television programme is neither here nor there, because notability is not inherited. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The Yahoo link within the article is an anecdotal mention at best. News-specific search returns nothing. A simple Google search for the term ukgameshows.com results in only trivial mentions outside of the site itself. Longevity of a fansite is not criteria that should be used when voting for/against deletion. There are likely hundreds of fanpages for foo that have been around for 10 years that do not have articles here.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Yahoo mention is analogous to the long-standing precedent that awards from notable bodies count towards notability. In this case, this is one of five TV-related sites listed for an annual award from one of the leading companies that searches web content. Lack of hits on Google/GNews does not invalidate the evidence of notability from sites already referenced in the article. And yes, longevity alone is not evidence of notability, but combined with third-party coverage elsewhere this helps separate the notable pages from the WP:NOTNEWS pages. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One sentence fragment mention on a "finds of the year" page is not the same as "third-party coverage", nor does it match "Significant coverage" in WP:N.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't it? The 100m world record is only a one-sentence mention in the Guinness Book of Records, but no-one would call that trivial coverage. The point is that a reputable source that goes out of its way to shortlist a web page carries more weight (in my opinion) then a passing mention in a news story. People have different opinions on what counts as significant coverage, and the purpose of these discussions is to collect opinions on whether the coverage is sufficient to qualify as significant. My opinion is that it is (when you combine all the individual sources), your opinion is that it isn't, but neither of us have the right to invalidate the other's opinion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The 100m dash is a standard track & field event in thousands of meets as well as Olympic trials and events. An incredibly brief barely noticeable mention of ukgameshows.com is not at the same level of notability as appearing in the Guinness Book of World Records, and a record-holder appearing in such is already covered by WP:ATHLETE.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But that exactly proves my point. You have argued a case why brief coverage in a source can be considered notable depending on the circumstances. I am doing the same for the Yahoo picks coverage. Yes, it's not as strong a case as the Guiness Book of records, but neither is is a slight mention in paragraph 14 of a slightly notable weblog. We judge notability on the context of the coverage too, not just the number of words written about it. Also, category 2 of WP:WEB allows a website to be notable if it receives an award, and yes, it was only a shortlist of one a five websites, but combined with the other third-party coverage I think it's enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ATHLETE specifically confirms notability for inclusion if the subject "Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body". Notability (web) states that a site is notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and states that coverage must be more than "trivial coverage" (i.e., newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site all constitute "trivial coverage"). The links from Yahoo and the Times that mention ukgameshows.com match the description for "trivial coverage."  Sottolacqua  (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that you are citing I different criterion to the one I raised. Yahoo falls under criterion 2, which says "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Okay, the award isn't that well-known, but it is an independent award from a very major web organisation, and The Times article makes up for the shortcomings. My opinion is that The Times article goes beyond a brief summary of the content (indeed it describes the site as the most popular site of this genre) and that and the Yahoo award between them are enough. You are entitled to your opinion that it does count as trivial coverage, but that's exactly what it is: an opinion, however many words you bold and italicise. Dogmatic interpretation of notability guidelines to prove a point is not helpful. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Affiliation with any game show is unnecessary. It is a web site that covers game shows, and the accolades in the recognition section of the article show that the site is a notable website. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Expanding my comments, I'm focusing on this line in the article:
 * The website has been cited in UK newspapers including The Guardian and The Times .
 * The piece in The Times is only three paragraphs; however, it was a stand-alone piece and not three paragraphs within a larger piece. The mention in The Guardian is a little trickier, because it's only one line within this context:
 * But who would that be? Who could possibly fill Richard's large and capable shoes? (If anyone could have capable shoes, it was Richard.) We were, frankly, on tenterhooks for the entire summer - until last weekend, when it was revealed exclusively in the Mirror that Des Lynam was being set up to don Whiteley's mantle. Des Lynam? We thought? Really? The reliable source of game show production gossip, ukgameshows.com, had a C4 source calling the article "complete speculation", but on Monday, the story seemed to be confirmed by the Yorkshire Post - and when have they ever been wrong?[emphasis added]
 * Yes, quantitatively, that's a trivial mention in The Guardian. Qualitatively, however, it's showing that they (or at least that writer for The Guardian) hold the site in enough respect that they'd consult it as a source for gossip. Accordingly, I stand by my assessment that coverage showing the significance of the website has been presented in the article; I also stand by my assessment as being within the spirit of the notability guidelines and not in defiance of them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The Guardian link merely references UKGameshows's existence as a source of gossip and it's use of a message board as a reference for a story published there, and even calls into question the site's balking at a rumor that later turned out to be true. The Times article is akin to a human interest story and mentions that the webmaster provides a summary of some game show episodes. These do not validate the "Significant coverage" requirements wp:notability requires for inclusion.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sotto's analysis of the sources: they are clearly trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.