Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLAM 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 delete. While not ideal by any standards, "most likely fails WP:NOTABILITY" is a valid argument for deletion, and that indeed seems to be what should be done here. ansh 666 20:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

GLAM TV

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Badly-edited, most likely fails WP:NOTABILITY T P  ✎ ✓ 15:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  15:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  15:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No participation.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)  00:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't relist AfDs such as this one. You don't need permission from a !voter to know that there is no argument for deletion here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So it's everyone but L3X1 can relist AfDs now, is it?? I don't even know what the last half of your above post means. The nomiantion rationale is not very strong. L3X1 (distænt write)  01:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I've confused myself. You're saying that is a weak rationale as well? That has very little to do with relisting a week old unattended AfD. L3X1 (distænt write)  01:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about a "weak rationale", those are your words. Perhaps in your case, it helps if a !voter tells you when there is no argument for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy close, WP:NPASR No argument for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Completely unsourced, no sources forthcoming in Google Books or other searches. Not mentioned/sourced at University of Glamorgan, so not worth the redirect there either. czar  02:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.