Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunderking


 * 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. czar ⨹   04:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thunderking

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was nominated for speedy deletion (a11) but it appears to be real so a11 doesn't apply. That being said, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * delete WP:GNG FrogSwitch (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I honestly can't see where this specific firework is particularly notable. A search does show that a firework by this name exists, but not where it would be notable or even well known enough to be a valid redirect target. Plus there are so many different names for fireworks that if we were to create one for each different variation we'd have thousands upon millions of names redirecting to the main article for fireworks, none of which would likely be valid redirect search terms. Most of them aren't as well as "black cat" or "snake" or "sparkler", after all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 05:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  05:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per everybody. No properly sourced evidence of notability in its own right, and Tokyogirl is exactly right that we can't realistically create an article or a redirect for every possible name (inclusive of regional dialect variations? oh dear) of every possible firework. (I did get a chuckle out of "Article created by Youtube user Carolina Pyro", although I was enough of a party-pooper to remove it since Wikipedia articles aren't allowed to contain author credits in their body text.) Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above (note that I redirected this to Firecracker but the article creator reverted me). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SNOW GSMR (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources doesn't qualify for inclusion and warrants deletion per WP:FAILN. It should be closed early per SNOW? Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:11, 6 December 2014 (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.