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. Joyous! | Talk 03:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liv3ly[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. No reliable sources are available, the fact that this has recieved certain awards is entirely trivial - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising and it's as simple as that, simply given the sheer fact everything here is only what they would advertise about themselves, and there's no notability, substance or genuine significance hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Duplicate article was created as LIV3LY. Pichpich (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 29 November 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.