Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveVideo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Rough consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Jreferee t/c 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LiveVideo

LiveVideo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was deleted in standard prod process but I was asked to put it here. So here we go... Supposed bordercase of WP:WEB Tone 20:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - I contested the prod out of common sense, but I concede there's a chance I'm wasting everyone's time. The most the site seems to be notable for is luring away YouTube talent. Motley Fool:[1][2][3] New York Times: [4] Quote from Times artice: "The comedy duo Smosh, another of YouTube’s biggest stars, moved to LiveVideo.com, where its videos begin and end with that site’s branding messages. The Smosh stars did not return e-mail messages seeking comment, but David Peck, LiveVideo’s vice president of operations based in El Segundo, Calif., said: “Just as every TV network, film studio and record label in America has done for decades, we are proactively signing talent to bring their work to new audiences.” Mr. Peck would not disclose the terms of its deals with contributors, but other popular YouTube contributors say LiveVideo has recruited them with promises of money in exchange for the right to show their videos exclusively for an introductory period." There might be other sources I can't find at the moment. Ichormosquito 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but that is a story about Smosh, not about LiveVideo.com. I've yet to see anything about LiveVideo that meets WP:WEB. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    No need to apologize, I have zero stake in this. I just thought it was too recognizable a site to prod. Other sources might exist. Somewhere. Ichormosquito 22:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, another in a laundry list of non-notable video sharing sites. They do not get free advertising here. For more similarly non-notable articles, see List of video sharing websites. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep See below. Weak delete - Unless more sources can be found. Ichormosquito 22:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep [5] Sources abound, although few are primarily related to the site at hand. Cursory mention and partial-articles in the pop. press, however, do seem to qualify as multiple verifiable sources - just need more than you do when more focused sources exist, and solid prose to give 'em context. MrZaiustalk 02:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    None of those sources are articles about the subject. The primary argument here is that the site does not meet notability standards laid out in WP:WEB. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Don't delete it - these guys are up-and-comers that are positioning themselves (well, actually) as competitors to both YouTube and MySpace. The company was started by Brad Greenspan, who co-founded the company the developed MySpace. It's at least notable for that reason, even though the article sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.243.147 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alexa Internet ranks the website as about the 1100th most visited site with about one third the page views as Metacafe a comparable site. Operating 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I realize notability by association is a tough sell, but William Shatner has a video blog there: [6]. And here's a source that is mostly about Brad Greenspan, but mentions the Shatner vlog and LiveVideo: [7] For these reasons, and the reasons listed by others, I'm changing my opinion to "weak keep". Indications of notability are good, even if the evidence isn't all there yet. Ichormosquito 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete 1100th on Alexa isn't that notable, now if it was the 1000th most notable for 5 years running. Maybe Mbisanz 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. can be re-added once (if?) true notability is achieved. stolenbyme 18:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
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.