Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lab with Leo Laporte

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) 03:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lab with Leo Laporte

[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)

Does not pass WP:GNG. I couldn't find any in depth sources and could only verify that WP:ITEXISTS. The show does not WP:INHERIT notability from it's hosts, guests, or producers. Leo Laporte is a potential redirect target. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real evidence of notability, never has had any. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once upon a time, our inclusion standards for television programming essentially guaranteed an automatic notability freebie to every television series so long as it was possible to offer technical verification that it existed. But the rules have long since been tightened up, and television series now require evidence of significance, such as notable television awards and/or substantial reliable source coverage about their significance in sources independent of their own self-published web presence. Nothing like that is shown here, and the four footnotes comprise two primary sources, two blogs and absolutely zero sources that would count for anything toward getting this over the notability hump — and even on a ProQuest search for in-its-own-time coverage that wouldn't Google well, all I get is a small handful of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things, and no useful sources that could actually be added to salvage this. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sad to see this one go, I remember it fondly. Could be merged to main Leo Laporte article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2021 (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.