Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decora

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 no consensus to delete, merging can be done without an AfD. W.marsh 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decora

Decora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Ero kawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article on a fashion style, but it is unsourced, and searching doesn't give turn up any

• Delete both, fails
  WP:N per nom. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 03:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep both These are interesting fashion styles, these articles should be cleaned up and sourced rather than deleted. - Candy-Panda 03:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - not verifiable, interesting or worthwhile--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge
  Kumi Koda, where it is already mentioned. (I'm happy to change either of these opinions if more sources turn up.)

  As an aside, personal opinions about whether something is interesting are not good reasons to keep or delete. For every article you like, someone out there thinks it's boring. —Celithemis 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]
  • Yes they are good reasons. And so is a lack of notability and verifibility.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they are not. As Celithemis points out, such criteria lead to chaos. We do not employ either "I think that it is interesting." or "I think that it is not interesting." as criteria. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both, somewhere, or delete. They might be better redirected to the (pretty horrible)
  WP:ILIKEIT. Dekimasu 11:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No opinion on
  NTV has a contest based on ero kawaii here, so I cannot justify deleting the second page. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It directly references "Koda Kumi-san" rather than treating "erokawa" as a separate entity. That would seem to lend credence to Celithemis's redirect suggestion. Dekimasu 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - I don't see how Ero Kawaii is that much different than Kinderwhore. The information could be merged there. MightyAtom 04:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - could be merged later if a consensus develops. Disagree with nom; Google searches don't establish unverifiability...
  Addhoc 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]