Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahyoheek

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. Number of editors is not a reason to keep an article, and the fact that it is not a hoax but fictionally exists is not a keep reason either. And the general consensus is that the subject of articles does have to be notable... Fram (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahyoheek

Fails to meet wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. Article is not notable because there are no reliable third party sources to show this is a notable topic by wikipedia standards. Randomran (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- both a google search and ProQuest archives search failed to turn up anything. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Myst Online: Uru Live. Articles don't have to be notable. And once merged into another article, text doesn't have to be notable either. --Pixelface (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we're not a game guide. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is consistent with what we, i.e. Wikipedia is and is an acceptable spinoff or sub article according to multiple editors, verfiable word that in a worst case scenario could be merged and redirected without deletion, but no reason for an outright deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails several Wikipedia guidelines. There is no Wikipedia:Reliable sources to establish Wikipedia:Notability. A Google search only provides 1,200 links to Wikipedia, forums and unreliable sources. The current article amounts to a game guide, something that Wikipedia is not, and cannot stand as a spin-off article. Kariteh (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2008 (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.