- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
BeIN Sports (MENA)
- BeIN Sports (MENA) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
advertising The Banner talk 10:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep yes, these one-word deletion rationales from the nominator are not going to cut the mustard, I think. It's a regional -- i.e. international cable channel. Can't see why this wouldn't be inherently notable per WP:BROADCAST. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Top sports channel in this region. Come on Banner, you know this is a
WP:BADFAITH and
WP:POINTy nom; knock it off.
Nate • (
chatter) 04:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Not willing to see advertising but accusing others of bad faith and pointy nomination is a easy way to let Wikipedia succumb to advertisers. With inaction the main culprit.
The Banner
talk 19:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment What are you going on about?! By your standards all television station/network articles would have to only be "(Network) is an (entity) broadcasting television programming...end". to comply with your definition of ADVERT. This is the main sports network in the Middle East and its
WP:N is plain to see without elaboration. At this point provactive nominations like this are a net negative to the project and waste time and resources fixing actual ADVERT articles.
Nate • (
chatter) 22:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nice joke, but by far not the truth. The Banner talk 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment What are you going on about?! By your standards all television station/network articles would have to only be "(Network) is an (entity) broadcasting television programming...end". to comply with your definition of ADVERT. This is the main sports network in the Middle East and its
WP:N is plain to see without elaboration. At this point provactive nominations like this are a net negative to the project and waste time and resources fixing actual ADVERT articles.
Nate • (
chatter) 22:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Not willing to see advertising but accusing others of bad faith and pointy nomination is a easy way to let Wikipedia succumb to advertisers. With inaction the main culprit.
The Banner
talk 19:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Strong keep for similar reasons as already mentioned (notably WP:BCAST) and that I wrote at the BeIN Sports Australia AfD by the same nominator. -- Whats new? (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: easily meets criteria listed in WP:BCAST for notability. musimax. ( talk) 15:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – The one-word rationale for deletion is not convincing; no qualification is provided.
North America
1000 16:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sometimes I get the idea that people only look at the title of an article but not to the content. The Banner talk 16:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)|
- Speedy keep - Article is not advertising, and even if it were
AFD is not cleanup and this is clearly notable. Nomination was in bad faith.
Smartyllama (
talk) 14:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Another editor supporting advertising and promo by plain inactivity. That you need insults to express your point, is disappointing. The Banner talk 21:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- The user did not insult you, they simply pointed out their reasons for voting and backing it up with actual policy. You haven't demonstrated any rationale backed up by policy or consensus to support your nominations of nearly every BeIN article there is. --
Whats new?
(talk) 21:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Then you better start reading this:
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
The Banner
talk 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've read it. Perhaps you could read WP:BROADCAST which nearly every editor has suggested -- Whats new? (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Then you better start reading this:
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
The Banner
talk 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- The user did not insult you, they simply pointed out their reasons for voting and backing it up with actual policy. You haven't demonstrated any rationale backed up by policy or consensus to support your nominations of nearly every BeIN article there is. --
Whats new?
(talk) 21:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - This article does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:BROADCAST. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 23 February 2017 (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.