Deletion of East Street (Children in Need)

Comment: We need to look at otability (events) here really. The event was not of any lasting historical significance nor has it had a particular impact. It did not receive |sustained coverage either
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: Satisfies the |general notability guideline requirement of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. We can certainly debate the quality of the sources: of the eleven present, a couple are tabloids (''The Sun'', ''Daily Mirror''), but there are also middle-market newspapers (''Daily Mail'', ''Evening Herald'') and a couple of the biggest entertainment websites in the UK (AOL Television, Digital Spy). Attempting to apply the events guideline is not ideal, as I think many television episodes would fall down on "sustained coverage" while remaining within acceptable bounds of the GNG. Unless an episode is particularly ground-breaking in some respect, or attracts later commentary through a DVD release or award nomination, the majority of coverage will naturally occur during the immediate period around its broadcast
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)