Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 TVB Anniversary Awards

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. Sandstein 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is not notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:SNOWBALL. The 2017 version was already deleted. Emass100 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball is not a speedy delete reason. You should just give a simple delete !vote, rather than an invalid speedy delete reason! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett:, hi admin, your fellow admins have to close 4 such pages 3 as delete and 1 as no consensus, and here we have 6 more afds, this is how screwed this can be, basically there are awards of the same from 2006 to 2017, all are copy and paste kind except content and each was hauled individually to Afd. The conclusion given for delete is userify to merge if needed after 2 relist. I don't understand voters and nominators nowadays in Afd causing so much problems Quek157 (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They should have all been on the same delete ticket, and it would have saved quite a bit of debate! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: which is WHY I kept repeating this at the few Afd 2005, 2006,2007,2017, and now we have 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. --Quek157 (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please make user:B dash aware of this busy work! I only came here to see what sort of thing that B dash was doing, and I voted in a couple of AFDs. (but only commented here!)Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett:, is not don't know, but just run. To nominator, you are not a new page reviewer or whatsoever with heavy load that cannot monitor Afd but please take ownership of your Afd. This is really so much of work. To admin, thanks for the view and I replied on your talkpage. --Quek157 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: I don't understand. What is the point of WP:SNOWBALL if it's not to justify Speedy delete/Speedy keep? Emass100 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball is just an early result, normally for keep, not a speedy delete. It is possible that an WP:IAR delete may happen early, but there is no reason for ignoring rules here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per all the rest, copying game resume. not keen for relist merge or whatsoever. actually quite wp:snow after the past few afd of very similar pages. it's wp:snow to argue for a keep. but not for speedy, it can only be for keep or delete. Quek157 (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and noiminator, do you have anymore ??? Quek157 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats all. --B dash (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@B dash:, sure the best actress, actor in the template don't need? --Quek157 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They can be kept. --B dash (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay, take your word. --Quek157 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2018 (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.