Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lansdowne 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lansdowne Live![edit]

PROD citing "unverified speculation" was rightly removed with the addition of a CBC article, but this article still makes it quite clear this is still very far from becoming any kind of reality: "the plans were just 'step 2 of 122' in the process. "; "The councillor who represents the area ... said he welcomes the consortium's bid, but it should be just one of many the city considers. ... H e's unlikely to support this proposal because it contains too many buildings and parking spaces, and not enough public green space." Fails WP:CRYSTAL and is probably spam. Ros0709 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After perusing articles on Google News], I see it's been talked about quite extensively, and appears notable. --Kickstart70TC 22:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lansdowne Park, where the information's already been merged. I don't think plans that may or may not go ahead are notable enough to warrant their own article. If the info becomes too much for the park's article and the plans become a reality, then it could be spun out into its own article. Somno (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Proposed sports venues are notable if there is coverage in reliable sources about them, which there is in this case. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability demonstrated the usual way. I do not see a case to make a special exception for this subject. Wily D 12:22, 6 November 2008 (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.