Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Macho Man


 * 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 Punch-Out!! characters. (non-admin closure) — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Super Macho Man

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

Most if not all of the reception section is made up of WP:TRIVIAL quotes from articles not directly about the character, with some being extremely tangentially related. Does not seem like a character notable enough for a standalone article, fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Punch-Out!! characters (the previous redirect target) or, alternatively, merge to Punch-Out!! (the related section of the series article). The character is covered in the given sources as an ensemble character and should be covered on Wikipedia as such. czar  18:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Punch-Out!! characters per Czar. Rorshacma (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect: After some searching around on Google, this is all I could really find. Everything in the article right now appear to have sources that are all passing mentions, and per GNG, at the bare minimum, we need two sources of significant coverage on the character. With that said, I would like to note that I have no prejudice towards restoring the article should someone find more sources that actually discusses the character beyond passing mentions. But until then, this can be redirected to List of Punch-Out!! characters. MoonJet (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge back to List of Punch-Out!! characters per rationales provided by other participating editors. Not sure why this needed to go to AfD when a bold merge, or if disputed, a merge proposal would have sufficed since everyone seem to agree that the character is discussed by reliable sources in some detail. PS: Would have been nice if this AfD happened before I took the trouble to upload a picture for a NPP-approved article that looked like it needed one. Haleth (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This was boldly merged several times already, looking at the article history, so I can get behind this being taken to AFD. As far as I can tell, there were no prior AFD or merge discussions on any talk pages for this character. MoonJet (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2022 (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.