Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zor (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zor

Disambiguation page with non-notable, fan cruft entries. Gflores ^Talk 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The previous AFD was apparently an {{nn-bio}}. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• I find myself shocked to say that I'm leaning towards keep. While the individual entries are not spectacularly notable, as a disambig it might be useful for keeping things separated. It also discourages the creation of whole articles on the subjects. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Stillnotelf --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Stillnotelf. Royboycrashfan 01:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless and potentially useful disambig page. No Guru 02:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as none of the entries is close to being notable enough for an article. We don't need disambiguation pages, or redirects, for races or characters in fiction that don't deserve an article of their own. Someone who is interested in the subject will look for the main article. -- Kjkolb 06:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is hypothetically possible that someone might think "What was the name of that book that Zor was from?" On that basis, and because Wikipedia is not paper, I'm going to vote Weak keep. --Hyperbole 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kaew peek. Skool sselmrah hguone. JIP | Talk 10:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, can't have enough disambig pages. Lankiveil 10:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
• Keep, even if they don't deserve their own articles this page is still useful. the wub "?!" 11:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if someones looking for this they can find the right article -- Astrokey44|talk 12:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as disambg page, might be useful. --Soumyasch 12:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Stillnotelf _→AzaToth 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm having a hard time figuring why a bunch of cruft suddenly becomes worth keeping as long as there's a disambiguation page. If the articles survive on their own merit, then a disambig page is meritorious. If they can't, then it isn't. RGTraynor 21:26, 23 March 2006 (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.