Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King of all Blacks (2nd nomination)
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to The Wack Pack#King of All Blacks. lifebaka++ 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- King of All Blacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails to assert notability, unreferenced and tagged as such since May 2007 with no action, article essentially duplicates entry for subject at The Wack Pack, subject is occasional caller to a popular radio show but notability is not transferrable. Dravecky (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect duplicates information from The Wack Pack, lacks notability to warrant own article. Redirect per DHowell--Rtphokie (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Wack Pack#King of All Blacks as a plausible search term. Per WP:BEFORE, the nom could have done this in the first place and probably avoided AfD. DHowell (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I certainly considered unilaterally turning it into a redirect but given that it had already survived another AfD I felt such a bold move would not be appropriate. - Dravecky (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Dravecky's choice here was a good one. Even though it takes a little extra time, use of the AFD process again is prudent given the fervor fans of this radio show are known for. This additional AFD will may prevent controversy later.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2008 (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.