Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livebarn

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. Following Scope creep's thorough source analysis, consensus shifted clearly to the delete side. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Livebarn

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business, annoucements, mergers news. No indication of significance. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly nominated out of WP:REVENGE Delectopierre (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know revenge. Its too expensive. We will go the references in the next few days. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right... Delectopierre (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a news story whenever a locale purchases Livebarn. This is not WP:ROUTINE procurement coverage, nor is it WP:CORPTRIV. [1] [2] [3][4] Longhornsg (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No its press-release that are being reported locally. Nothing that passes WP:SIRS We will go through the references. scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to this, it self evidently passes WP:NCORP. This AfD wastes everyone's time.

Delectopierre (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a variety of reliable sources have been posted.yutsi (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine these references here and in the article. I'll look at these first:

Ref 1 [5] That is a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS
Ref 2 [6] "The company describes itself on its website as being a provider of live and on-demand video of amateur and youth sporting events from more than 1,000 facilities" That is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 3 [7] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 4 [8] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 5 [9] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 5 [10] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV

Looking at the references:

Ref 1 Its above.
Ref 2 Its above.
Ref 5 [11] "LiveBarn and OMHA Announce New Video Streaming Partnership". Routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 6 [12] This has taken from a ceo interview. It fails WP:SIRS as its not independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 7 Another annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release.
Ref 9 [13] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.

In fact not a single one of these references satisfy WP:NCORP. They fails WP:SIRS,WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPTRIV. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, not a single one of your pronouncements is an honest or accurate representation of the sources. Additionally, even if all of those were simply announcements of partnerships (they aren't) WP:CORPTRIV says absolutely nothing about partnerships being trivial mentions. Delectopierre (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR for non notable company. Scope Creeps analysis looks honest and accurate to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC):[reply]

Describing a CBC article titled Eye in the sky: How streaming of local hockey has changed the game that is quite literally about Livebarn and HomeTeam Live (a competitor of Livebarn's) as a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS is honest and accurate?

How about cherry picking a single sentence in that article that correctly the company's description to their website, and therefore discounting the CBC as not independent?

How about a NYT/Athletic article titled Drew Bannister’s path to the Blues: Family sacrifice, LiveBarn bonding and the coach behind the coach as a routine annoucement of partnership?

Shall I keep going? Delectopierre (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't start WP:BLUDGEONING other editors because you don't like their !votes. scope_creep^Talk 06:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eye in the sky is about streaming services in general and just uses those two as examples, making passing mentions of both.

The extent of coverage about Livebarn itself in that second article was taken from Livebarn themselves. That lacks independence.

NYT/Athletic Just mentions he watched games on Livebarn. Passing mention, No depth of coverage. Yes it does look like Scope characterised that one incorrectly but it's still trivial.

How about "Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release." Yes, honest and accurate. Found on business wire. Reads like a press release. Complete with contacts for both companies. Ends wi5th about sections on both. Obviously a press release.

How about "Ref 9 [13] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent." Yes, honest and accurate. Entire mention is "These investments included a recent $14 million investment in LiveBarn, ..." Clearly just a passing mention of an Investment in livebarn from the investor. Just a passing mention means it fails on point one of SIRS. Being from the investor means it fails point 2 of SIRS.

Those two show your pronouncement that "In actual fact, not a single one of your pronouncements is an honest or accurate representation of the sources." is not honest or accurate.

And how about The Albertan: "the Sundre Minor Hockey Association was pleased to announce the local launch of a LiveBarn service." Sounds like an announcement to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the assessment presented by scope_creep show that the subject doesn't pass notability guidelines.Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRITE, does not appear to have sufficient valid secondary sourcing. I also agree with ScopeCreep's assessment. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsure if this is even encyclopedic. The sources do not seem strong. Not all streaming companies are notable. Ramos1990 (talk)

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.