Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMA Entertainment TV

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 GMA Network (company). NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Entertainment TV

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

One of several spin off articles of the main company, GMA Network (company), they all should be redirected to the parent article, none have enough notability for standalone articles. Will include others in this AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages based on the same rationale:

List of mergers and acquisitions by GMA Network Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMA Worldwide is also up for nomination for the same reasons. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you search that up on google. This article already placed there. As the profile has it.Kazaro (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, you need to make an AfD entry for each article you are nominating. Do not add a new nomination to an existing AfD. Softlavender (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:MULTIAFD, Softlavender. I created the AfD, then added the related page, as per guidelines. It's also why I didn't add these to the already existing AfD on the article. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the two articles you have so far on this page do not fit WP:MULTIAFD. They are completely different types of articles, completely different subjects, and the arguments for each will be completely different. Moreover, when a person clicks on the notice at the top of List of mergers and acquisitions by GMA Network Inc., they should not be brought to this AfD, which bears little or no resemblance to it. Please do not confuse the issue -- create a separate AfD for what is clearly a separate, distinct, and very different article. Bundling nominations for two very different articles makes the job of the closer very difficult as well. Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, we're simply going to disagree on this. They are clearly related, both (and the other one already at AfD) having to do with the parent company and its subsidiaries, and both suffer from the same malady. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too don't see anything wrong with what the nominator is doing. They seem related enough for a group nomination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GMA Network (company) per nom. Doesn't appear to be independently notable, and a search for sources doesn't finy anything that would establish independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company); Wikipedia does not need multiple articles on the same company / its subsidiaries. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It shows that this list doesn't fit to the articles info box. Kaponohillen (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, otherwise Redirect to GMA Network (company). -WayKurat (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2017 (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.