Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concert 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. Per sources provided by whpq. Editors should keep working it to keep it clean of adverty language. Keeper |  76  19:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Concert Live

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-neutral story that looks like advertising. Deleted 1-3-2013 but restored without undeletion request under a slightly different name. First AfD was Articles for deletion/Concert Live Ltd.. The Banner talk 21:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * Note: I declined a G4 speedy deletion nomination on this article because the prior AFD was summarily closed without discussion, so I viewed G4 as an invalid rationale in this particular case. I'd rather see a policy-based consensus on deletion, if no speedy deletion criteria are applicable. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - shameless advertisement for a non-notable (no substantial coverage) business. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article could use some editting, especially the list of everythign they ahve ever put out should probably be ditched. Hwoever, they have recevied sufficient coverage to convince me that inclusion is warranted.  Telegraph, Financial Times, Financial Times again, sunday times.  This Music Week one is a bit weak as it just echoes back whatever information thwe company provided, but it is a reliable source.  The Telegraph had them do this diary which isn't useful for establishin notability on its own but can support it given that there is much more substantial sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is currently an WP:ADVERT. There is a suggestion above to edit, but the principle remains delete now, improve later per WP:NRSNVNA and others DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia is a collaborative editting environment and articles are not expected to be perfect. That is actual Wikipedia policy. WP:NRSNVNA, the essay (not policy) doesn't really apply in this case either as I have pointed out that the reliable sources actually exist.  If this AFD closes as a keep, I'll likely add the refs and chop the excess detail.  However, if the lack of sources in the aricle right this very instance is a problem, you are welcome to improve the article by adding them yourself. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I hate to say it, but I think they have made it to notability. Now all that is left is to remove all the advertising (disclogs appears to simply be their catalog,  so all that huge list should just be stripped out and Disclogs added to the external links Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2013 (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.