Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kung Fu HD

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu HD

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

article lacks notability and references. 0pen$0urce (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Article lacks notability and references. I attempted to find reliable secondary references to no avail. This is part of a series of short lived defunct sub-networks. Not seeing the notability to have it's own article.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 24. Snotbot t • c » 14:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect, or merge. Not notable on its own. My first suggestion was to redirect to Voom HD Networks#Channels. That brought up the bigger issue - all other articles linked there are in similar shape. Exceptions are UltraHD, which looks to me to be about a different topic, and Monsters HD, which has some length but most seems non notable. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just think this article doesn't meet the requirements to be freestanding or even exist. The Monsters HD is full of a lot, and I do mean a lot of unreferenced fluff such as a long list of Movies it aired. Only 1 questionable reference.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article should not exist, just think the others should go as well. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is where I stand, not notable, lacks references.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2012 (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.