Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Funco File

In this article, we will explore the topic of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Funco File in depth, analyzing its impact on today's society and its relevance in different contexts. Since its appearance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Funco File has generated a constant debate among experts and the general population, who seek to understand its importance in daily life. Over the years, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Funco File has evolved and taken on new meanings, leading to increased interest from researchers and scholars on the subject. In this sense, this article aims to provide a comprehensive view of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Funco File, addressing different approaches and providing valuable information for those interested in expanding their knowledge on this topic.
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. Singularity 07:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Funco File

The Funco File (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable book by non-notable author, and mostly WP:COPYVIO to boot. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not copyvio by the look of it, but Google only gives me 750 or so results. Non-notable, delete.
  • Delete. Not Encyclopedic enough, and not reliable sources. Dwilso 15:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It could be kept if there were some reliable sources about it, but in its current state it is not sourced and its notability is thus totally undemonstrative. DJLayton4 (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It isn't even a proper article: it just copies the blurb on the back cover of the book. That is probably a copyright violation, but even if it isn't, it's just totally pointless and uninformative; it isn't even a stub. Certainly not something you expect to find in an enclycopedia. Richard75 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2008 (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.
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia