British Comedy Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Website lacks notability; significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Refs provided are either from subject's own coverage or mere mentions (related to comments made on BCG podcasts) – no significant coverage *about* the website from reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the content of the website has received awards and nominations and is often cited in reference books and other media. -Mushy Yank. 11:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing any reference books or media that establish significant coverage. Unless and until Mushy Yank provides citations and quotations that demonstrate that significant coverage exists, their vote should be disregarded. Awards do not establish notability, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (web) Some of the awards are mentioned on the page. With references. And a simple Gbooks click allows to verify that what I wrote is true. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being nominated for an award is not sufficient for meeting WP: NWEB. It also isn't clear to me that a Bronze-level award establishes notability. Also, please remember that Google Books may show different results for different users. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in my search. I promise I'm not trying to be pedantic; I legitimately am unable to find any sources on Google Books that establish significant coverage. Please show us the sources you've found. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The podcasts that won the minor awards are dubiously notable themselves with limited independent coverage, let alone the website that hosts them. It's even unclear to me if this website even produced these podcasts or just syndicates them. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which 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 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 except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.

  Sources
  1. "The arts online: Seeing the funny side". The Times. 2007-01-13. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

     The article provides 101 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Is the British sitcom on the slide or on the up? Whatever its condition, the many users of the British Sitcom Guide, launched in August 2003, can be relied upon for an opinion. However, there is no doubting the authority behind this guide to more than 200 British sitcoms, which aims “to provide a comprehensive guide to every UK sitcom ever made”. Its messageboard is a forum for ferocious debate over shows such as Are You Being Served? with John Inman (above) — apparently particularly loved in the US. News competitions and shop sections will sate the most slavish devotee’s needs."

  2. Dee, Johnny (2005-04-30). "The Guardian: The Guide: Preview. Internet: * The British Sitcom Guide". The Guardian. ProQuest 246286725. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

     The review provides 103 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "There are some foolish folk who believe the best British TV revolves around women in corsets arranging plates of fondant fancies but one glance at this exhaustive website will inform them otherwise - the true heart of UK creativity is the humble sitcom. From Absolutely Fabulous to Yus My Dear every situation comedy ever gets its own page with episode guides, links and news - including the welcome information that Max & Paddy is returning for a second series. There's a good section on sitcoms in production - most star Rob Brydon - while gossip fans can feed their habit by signing up to a weekly newsletter."

  3. "Web Life". Birmingham Post. 2007-08-21. ProQuest 324189489. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

     The article provides 57 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "www.sitcom.co.uk is of the opinion that the best British TV takes the form of the humble sitcom. The site features information on more than 200 homegrown series, with many more added to its annuls each month. From Absolutely Fabulous to Max and Paddy every sitcom ever made has its own page with episode guides, links and news."

  4. Hall, Julian (2006). The Rough Guide to British Cult Comedy. New York: Rough Guides. p. 253. ISBN 978-1-84353-618-5. Retrieved 2025-02-24 – via Google Books.

     The book provides 43 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "www.sitcom.co.uk: This guide to British sitcoms is reasonably comprehensive – it has over 800 sitcoms in its index – and is a useful resource for potential sitcom writers, with a good area devoted to the craft, complete with tips, courses and reviews of relevant books."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow British Comedy Guide (formerly known as British Sitcom Guide) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for finding these sources, but I'm not sure if this establishes notability. These each look like "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", which would not qualify for establishing notability under WP: NWEB. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those summaries are most certainly trivial mentions of the subject, not the significant coverage needed to establish notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]