Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Fun Ball


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. WP:SNOW keep and withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy Fun Ball

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable enough to justify its own page. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NEXIST. Besides the book mention from The Totally Sweet '90s cited in the article, there is also a CNET article about Happy Fun Ball, presumably written by a vetted human journalist, and a mention in Saturday Night Live FAQ, presumably not a primary source. This clearly fulfills WP:SIGCOV, and there is enough context in the first two sources to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. It just squeaks by independent notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zxcvbnm; do not taunt the Happy Fun Ball article. 😉  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. —darling (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator wasnt aware of the CNET article and the other book I agree with the idea that its barely passes WP:SIGCOV Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her)


 * 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.