Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 the Ranting Gryphon (2nd nomination)
with no prejudice against possible future recreation, per Zetawoof (near the top of the page). Samuel Conway is a pretty good model of the sort of thing that ''would'' hold up, but as it stands 2's article is not enough. |Verifiability is a tough policy ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"), but |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I think it's right that there's some sort of bar to clear. Also, as pointed out by a couple of other editors above, the fact that a number of other people who don't meet the verifiability standards have articles on Wikipedia doesn't mean that they ''should'' have them; it just means nobody's got around to nominating them for deletion! The production of a couple of mainstream news articles discussing 2 more than very fleetingly would change things quite a bit and would probably lead me to vote keep
— User:Loganberry, 03:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:Verifiability)