Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UKGameshows.com (3rd 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

UKGameshows.com
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not inherently notable and doesn't align with notability guidelines at WP:WEBSITE. Only trivial mention in random blog posts and connection to a fake image. No real notability from third parties. Zim Zala Bim talk 21:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites,  and United Kingdom.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  21:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at those first two noms is a mirror into a time where we considered one source to be acceptable and the nom was packed with game show fans hardly arguing about its notability, but that WP:ITSNEAT. In 2024, the keeps look embarrassing, and this simply has no current-day notability at all. Half the in-article sources are circular references to the site, and we're still sourcing a YAHOO recommendation (that can't even be accessed because Yahoo is hardly in that field any longer and 404ed it long ago) from 2005 for N, which is in "Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in one game" territory. I hate deleting articles for websites run by a couple of people, but our standards have tightened up for good reason.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Like Nate I also hate deleting any articles from Wikipedia because it means that people's efforts, which are voluntary, are deleted and their time has ultimately been wasted. However, we still have to find a balance and ensure an article meets certain standards and reading through this article it's a very difficult one to call, not least due to a lack of any reference for anything other than recognition.


 * One possibility here, if the consensus is not to keep it, might be to draftify, thereby giving those who see the topic as being notable enough for inclusion the opportunity to improve it by finding other independent references.Rillington (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Notability (web) says: "Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" Sources   The book notes on page 18: "The established British website www.UKgameshows.com is a veritable celebration of the quiz and game show, but it still invokes the concept of originality as a criterion of evaluation. Endemol's rather short-lived Shafted (ITV1, 2001), for example, is lambasted by the site for being a 'checklist of features from more original and successful shows' ..." The book notes on page 24: "In contrast, the internet site www.UKGameshows.com, which provides information about more than 1,000 game show formats from 1938 to the present day, welcomes these newer strands of programming. It does not have to worry about the economic constraints of scheduling, and it explains that its 'definition of "game show" is wide-ranging, taking in children's television, traditional quizzes and panel games, lifestyle TV, reality TV and talent shows'. Its own criteria, on at explicit level at least, is more related to questions of national context: it excludes 'imported programmes' unless a British version has been produced. Yet it too has more implicit generic criteria for inclusion and exclusion which rest upon evaluative criteria." The book notes on page 74: "But as Hills acknowledges, one of the few spaces to offer a more evaluative recognition of quiz show aesthetics is the established British website, www.UKGameshows.com, designed for interested viewers and fans, as well as the quiz and game show industry. In the extensive entries for each show written by the owners of the site (Chris M. Dickson and David J. Bodycombe), we come across such comments as: ..."   The book notes on page 189: "But, by contrast, ukgameshows.com anthropomorphically converts the show into a personality: ‘it' became 'arrogant', and 'insisted' on being on all the time. ... Although ukgameshows.com and its contributors are evidently aware of commercial forces, and of debates over ‘public service' versus ‘commercial' television, they do not a priori or consistently pursue economic explanations for the (sub)genres and texts they evaluate, instead moving in and out of discursive framings linked to notions of 'the commercial'. For instance, ..." The book notes on page 190: "The structure of ukgameshows.com also anticipates and imagines a range of priorities for its users. It promotes the report/manual How To Devise A Game Show, interpellating its users as wanting to produce as well as consume game shows. This indicates a sense, ... Furthermore, ukgameshows.com's first 'featured' link is 'Be on TV', which at the time of writing (28 February 2005) included 'Contestant calls' for a wide range of quiz/game shows. It should be noted that BBC programmes are, if anything, more in evidence here than those of broadcasters primarily and discursively defined as 'commercial'. " The book notes on pages 190–191: "This difference in symbolic and cultural power is very much recognized by ukgameshows.com. The site's contributors do not seek to challenge the hierarchical value of being a 'media person', but instead desire to cross the ordinary/media boundary in any manner possible, whether this is a fleeting movement within the industry as a contestant, a recurrent series of appearances on game shows, or an interest in devising a game show format." </li> <li> The review provides 172 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "As guides to the genre go, ukgameshows.com is deservedly the most popular. It has more than 1,800 articles, many of which can be found in the A-Z guides to Shows and People. There are items on auditioning for shows, their history and an annual poll for “Best Game Show of All Time”. ... Much of the site’s appeal can be credited to its resident scribe, Iain Weaver. As well as a guide to the coming week’s game show itinerary, his “Weaver’s Week” column is compulsory reading for those who have missed out on recent shows." </li> <li> The review provides 100 words of coverage. The review notes: "A great site for keeping abreast of breaking game show news (essentially what Clare Balding is wearing on Countdown this afternoon) and advice on devising and appearing on TV game shows." </li> <li> The review provides 63 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "UK Game Shows: www.ukgameshows.com/contestants/index.htm. Put yourself in the hot seat with some of tellyland's biggest quizzes and game shows. Choose from National Lottery Jet Set, new shows, Under Construction and Brainteaser, as well as old favourites like Blind Date. The site is independent of any TV companies but carries an up-to-date list of programmes looking for contestant and full contact details." </li> <li> The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. "The exhaustive history of British gameshows, collated at www.ukgameshows.com, requires equal persistence, and will bring a shiver of horrified recognition to anyone who remembers The Golden Shot ("Left a bit, right a bit... fire!")." </li> <li> The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "At UK Game Shows - www.ukgameshows.com- you'll find a whole section devoted to contestant calls for shows from Ready Steady Cook to Fort Boyard, with an A to Z of the most popular programmes and addresses to contact. " </li> <li> The text "Game Shows" links to http://www.ukgameshows.com/index.php/Main_Page. The page provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The page notes: "Game Shows: The absolute mother lode of British game show news, views and info. “I’ll have a P please Bob” (hilarity ensues)." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow UKGameshows.com to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC) </li></ul> Relisting comment: I was torn whether to close as 'keep' or 'no consensus', or to relist. Cunard's excellent contribution was made 6 days ago, and the subsequent !vote is also to keep based on Cunard. However, prior to Cunard there were a few people (including the nominator) !voting delete or leaning that way. I think another 7 days will see consensus become clearer here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  04:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Following on from the above post, and assuming this can be included into the article, then it definitely should be kept. Rillington (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now added some of those independent references to the article. Rillington (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep as notability has now been demonstrated. Cortador (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.