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. ~Wikihermit 04:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noteable website. Pure and simple. Dalejenkins 13:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "recognition" section at the bottom of the article makes clear, referenced assertions of notability. In particular, the "3" link to the Times newspaper is a whole article about this website in a major newspaper, so the website is notable. Shalom Hello 13:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These may just be trivial mentions. Notability generally requires multiple reliable independent published sources with more than mere trivial mentions of the subject of the article. Ideally, the source would be about the subject of the article.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has also had several mentions on radio. I can upload a radio interview with the owner if you wish. Jw6aa 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mention in the Guardian which is cited is trivial, but the one in the Times is a (short) article devoted to the site. As the other links in "Recognition" are mostly trivial as well, at the moment the existence of multiple non-trivial sources seems to hinge on whether a "Yahoo find of the year" qualifies as one. Not sure myself so NeutralIain99 19:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, OK, I buy it. There are sources that assert notability, and that's what I'm always asking for, so... - Philippe | Talk 19:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only slightly noteable website, I don't agree that its noteable enough despite its discussion in two newspapers, one of which seems extremely trivial. If it grows in time perhaps then it may warrant an entry? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 16:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The site's been around for 10 years - not bad by internet standards - and regularly gets mentioned as a "Site of the Week" in the British media. Opportunitycost 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another possibility is to to re-merge back into David J. Bodycombe, from whence the original version of this article was split off in the first place. -- PinkEllie 22:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As most of that site is now written by gameshow wiki contributors, and Bodycombe only helps manage it (with others), it's possibly not the best move. Also, this article is long enough to justify its own entry, I feel. Opportunitycost 12:06, 20 July 2007 (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.