- 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 delete. Tone 15:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC Breakdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod was contested by author. The subject of the article is technical difficulties on BBC television networks. This is not a notable event. Any really significant failures that result in major press coverage can be mentioned in BBC One or another appropriate article. Minor glitches aren't notable and don't need to be mentioned at all. Zachlipton (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Zachlipton, minor glitches are really notable or a national phenomenon or anything like that, and all "breakdowns" can be mentioned on notable, already existing BBC articles, such as the article of the channel the breakdown occured on. --123Hedgehog456 11:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, that there was some minor technical difficulties does not notability make. Blackouts/brownouts etc are more impactful yet could not possibly be considered notable. MLA (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete inaccurate as it suggests that whole stations go down, when its far more common for particular regions to have an issue. If widened to every failure of BBC equipment it would turn into a technical issue log for BBC engineering. Would this constitute engineering-cruft? Funnily enough this possibility doesn't seem to be directly addressed by WP:NOT, although I'm pretty sure it comes somewhere within WP:INDISCRIMINATE--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2011 (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.