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 Internet top-level domains. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.mango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An irrelevant domain. A merge with a list of all top level domains could be good. Staglit (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What exactly to you mean by "irrelevant"? And where exactly have you searched.? DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AfD is not the place for discussing mergers. Since in this case, it is an uncontroversial merger to List_of_Internet_top-level_domains, you should have merged all the articles instead of nominating here. Atleast you should have bundled all your nomination. Harsh (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a redirect to something like Generic_top-level_domain#New_top-level_domains or List of top-level domains would be appropriate until the article sumbitter can demonstrate it has passed the WP:GNG. Collectively the new TLDs considered together, are highly noteworthy, which is why we have two articles discussing them, linked above, Individually, they are almost all not (yet) notable. There are a huge number of these, and they are actually quite easy to register, if you've got enough money. Just because something is in ICANN's database, doesn't mean it passes WP:N. -- The Anome (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. No independent notability in a search engine test. Best kept in list until sources show. Before you nominate to AfD, might be worth discussing merge options on the article talk pages. And group deletion nominations can be bundled, for the future. czar ♔ 16:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Staglit, are you recommending deletion in any way? Your argument appears to recommended merge as the course of action, so I wanted to give you a heads up that AfD noms that don't have a deletion argument qualify for speedy keep #1. If this is the case, you may want to withdraw your nom. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or otherwise just do it yourself WP:BOLDly. Have a good one czar ♔ 16:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Czar : I suppose my wording was off. I meant that they could be deleted if they were regarded as insignificant, or merged to the other article if they are seen as an appropriate fit for that but not for their own article. Personally, I think they should all be deleted completely, but the possibility for a merge is obviously still open. Staglit (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains as not notable for a standalone article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:04, 30 April 2014 (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.