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. The consensus below is that coverage in independent, reliable sources is insufficient to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Net Talk Live!

[edit]

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

When MikeWazowski (talk · contribs) proposed the article for deletion, his concern was "Unremarkable local TV program. No significant coverage." That's still the case. There are two sources, but they're both in Dallas, so there's no evidence the subject has any notability outside of the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. When I tried searching news for this show, I got lots of results, but almost all of them were scheduling information in the Dallas area. Does not meet WP:GNG.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original reasons. A Google News search on "Net Talk Live!" shows mainly local schedule info or trivial mentions, no significant coverage. A standard search shows a lot of unreliable sources, social media, trivial listing information, or YouTube/video clips. There's no denying it existed, but there's no significant coverage - certainly none to back up the spurious claims added to the article at one point that every major broadcast network in the country carried this program. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few days ago, I added the sources now in the article, because they were the best I could find. I removed several unreliable sources. I've concluded that coverage in reliable sources is inadequate to show that Net Talk Live! is notable, and this article (along with the related CueCat) has become a magnet for COI and POV editing. Someone is trying to create a rosy, controlled history here, and we should not allow any such revisionism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom and other contributors. Utterly non-notable. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original premise MikeWazowski (talk · contribs) proposed the article for deletion, his concern was "Unremarkable local TV program. No significant coverage." However this has already been proven untrue by the source I added [1] showing it was a syndicated program airing outside of the Dallas area.Ran kurosawa (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This source brought forward by Ran Kurosawa is not significant coverage useful for establishing notability because it is simply a reprint of a 1997 press release announcing an upcoming premiere which had not yet occurred. No one is saying that the show did not exist, but rather that it is not notable. This source includes no critical commentary on the show and no in-depth discussion of its contents. It isn't even a freestanding article but is part of a series of short blurbs on various TV shows that includes speculation about the possible renewal of Jerry Seinfeld's show and an announcement of an upcoming documentary on the tobacco industry. It is crystal ball stuff about upcoming events. It is filler material, not significant coverage. Ran kurosawa, you seem to be acting as a single purpose acccount editing only this and closely related articles. Please declare any conflict of interest that you may have regarding this show, its creator or his inventions and patents. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 16 November 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.