Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Live

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. Nakon 01:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seems to be a locally produced music competition aired on a regional public-access cable channel. Fails WP:GNG, no sources listed, cannot find any coverage, only hits are their own facebook, etc. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi ☾Loriendrew☽, I am in the process of buliding Local Live. Please allow time to complete full article before discussing the article so that I can ensure it meets all policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Kindly, Senceso1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senceso1 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I'm not sure it fails WP:GNG. It has some secondary sources that, while not all explicitly about the topic, give it more than a trivial mention. I say weak because, in spite of that, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it may be more appropriate to include in another article, rather than as its own article, but I'm not familiar with the topic, most of its links are red, and so I doubt that's a likely possibility. I side with keep because it may be notable, and, if there is an article it can be merged with in the future, I think we can revisit it as a merger, but delete seems a little over-the-top at the moment. Wugapodes (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Too early in article's life to warrant deletion. Keep for now, but might revisit this discussion if article is not expanded. Suttungr (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Still no evidence of more than merely local significance. The article is written as if it were of wide significance in Canada, but the references do not support that. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 20:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).

  For example, this article from Orillia Packet says:

  This is detailed and encyclopedic information about Local Live that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline's definition of "significant coverage").

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Local Live to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2015 (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.