Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Females in BBC Panel Shows

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 merge to BBC controversies. No consensus for outright deletion but not considered a notable topic in its own right. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Females in BBC Panel Shows

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by article creator. I'm pretty sure this could be merged somewhere, but this topic simply isn't independently notable. There are a few sources in the article, but I don't feel that this warrants an article (we don't even have an article on "BBC Panel show"). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~Pure nonsense.~~ --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Why should I have a User Name?: Though WP:NONSENSE is a reason for [speedy] deletion, that implies incoherence. This is clearly coherent. Are you just saying the argument put forth by the sources is incorrect? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, I striked those words, which I wrote because the title did not look like a very reasonable topic for a Wikipedia article. After having a look at your sources, I decided to strike them. I will try to read those references in detail, when I have some time, then I may improve my standing. Thank you for the sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable enough for an article, and merge the content into one of the articles about the BBC (given that it is a BBC policy decision). Either the main BBC one, or Criticism of the BBC or BBC controversies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem to be a talking point. You could stick it on panel shows article if there was such an article. Surely these comediennes have livelihoods? It might not interest you, but that's not the same as nonsense? Slightnostalgia (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is "pretty sure this could be merged somewhere" but if we delete the page we can't merge it. See WP:MAD and WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as ... merging". Andrew (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It seems like this should possibly by Women in Panel Games or Gender Representation in British Panel games rather than the weird use of "females", but it seems a solid enough subjetc and worth expanding on, unless of course there;s someplace else it is already covered which it could be merged to. Artw (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Below are just from a couple pages of Google hits about the subject. There are more, and they're not all just about the February 2014 ban -- it's a topic people have been talking about for years. It should probably be renamed something like Panel show sexism in the United Kingdom or used to start an article all about Panel shows in the United Kingdom, but those are discussions separate from whether or not it should be deleted. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the nominator's comments above,I'm pretty sure this could be merged somewhere and per the sources sited by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs). Wikicology (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really an encyclopaedic subject and based on one person's comment. It got a lot of media coverage at the time, but that doesn't mean we should have an article about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Media coverage more or less determines what an encyclopedic subject is on Wikipedia, and the coverage is by many people over several years. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will find extensive media coverage on just about every issue regarding the BBC, that does not mean there should be an article for every issue. I feel the subject would be better served inside an article about the BBC and not as a standalone. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I am not withdrawing this AfD, I am not against a creation on an article on UK panel shows and the role of women in them. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially agree with everything stated by Rhododendrites, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Television in the United Kingdom per WP:SS. This is a sub-sub-topic that is insufficiently developed for a standalone article. We would first need an article about such shows in the UK in general, or about women in UK television in general, before we can have an article about the intersection of the two. Pending that, the parent topic is the appropriate target for a merger in condensed form. Sandstein 10:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Relisted so Sandstein's ideas and other ideas can be explored. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 14:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be merged. Not notable for its own article Avono♂ (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable not encyclopedic, every bit of minutia does not need to have an entry in an encyclopedia, this entry is frankly ludicrous. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge item is of interest in the correct context, but it should not have an article of its own. Perhaps merge into Panel game? Shritwod (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.