Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Loaded

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. Thanks to the expansion and referencing done by MichaelQSchmidt. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Living Loaded

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

No general notability. Living Loaded is actually an unsold pilot for Fox, not a television film. [1] [2] snαp • snαp ^(talk) 18:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

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

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

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

Keep. Pilot or not, the production has the coverage to meet WP:NF: Deadline (1), Deadline (2), Deadline (3), Hollywood Reporter, The Wrap, TV Guide, Huffington Post, Indiewire, and others. Needs to be improved through adding the many available sources, not deleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: In following my own suggestion, the unsourced stub first brought to AFD, has now been expanded and sourced. More can be done, but I believe WP:GNG is shown. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the recent expansion and addition of credible and reliable sources, this page definitely meets the standards of notability. It still needs a lot of work, but it should be kept. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I nearly would've closed it myself, convincing enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 14 May 2016 (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.