Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-E-Faces

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 List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Man-E-Faces. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man-E-Faces

[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)

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Jontesta (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Man-E-Faces per WP:ATD. Lacks notability for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Article pretty clearly fails notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his section on the character list.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2024 (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.