Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Loaded (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Living Loaded

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable television pilot, lacks the significant coverage needed to meet long-term notability per WP:GNG. All sources (including the ones presented at the last AfD) are simply reworded press releases, not independent of the subject, reporting verbatim casting news, attached crew, and the mere existence of this pilot's development – none provide significant coverage. Thousands of unaired broadcast network pilots exist, and this one is not unique enough to merit a standalone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has sources that reliably pass GNG. Independent means the source site is not related to the article's subject itself dibbydib (T ･ C) 07:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable sources, but they are separately repeating information from the same exact press releases, which is not independent of the subject. It's not significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Typically unaired pilots do not meet notability guidelines, since there are thousands of them. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources all constitute WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's no way this article passes WP:10YT in my mind. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate repository of information, and it would take a pretty unusual set of circumstances for me to think an unaired pilot is long-term notable. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are as noted above (several times) - rephrasing of the same press release material. This is not substantial independent coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:40, 5 May 2020 (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.