Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liho

A google for +Liho "one eye" gets two hits; this appears to be nonsense, but I'm not totally sure; if someone can provide context, feel free. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:27, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

Note: I moved this article to the more common English spelling of Likho (article improvements are allowed to be made during voting) since this looks like it will stay. Both the original Liho (now a redirect) and the new page are still marked with VfD message. -- Netoholic @ 21:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Take a look. Mikkalai 06:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote. My guess is that this is a translation of some Slavic fairytale creature's name. A google with the Slavic name might provide some better insight. -- Bobdoe 05:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs elaboration. Mikkalai 06:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - this was VfD'd only 4 minutes after creation. Why can't cleanup and expansion steps be used first? Also, the "Google test" has its limits and is not the sole verifiability method in existence. -- Netoholic @ 07:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * In my defense the original version looked pretty close to patent nonsense. I hardly think I should be jumped on here. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:09, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at Patent nonsense. I don't think you realize, but that phrase should only refer to total jibberish or confusing nonsense. This article seems well written. If you dispute accuracy, send to cleanup or mark as disputed, but don't VfD.-- Netoholic @ 13:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem is that sending it to cleanup makes an implicit assumption that this thing exists, which, from the google hits and the original enty, I had no evidence for--the total content was "Creature with one eye and one leg (the other ones situated in "Navi" - parallel world) Embodiment of evil fate, misfortune". For all I know, this could be completely made up, and the lack of google hits only compounds the doubt. Why would I put this on cleanup when I'm not even sure there's anything to clean up? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:01, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, there is great variation between how different people interpret the Speedy guidelines, and Meelar's is NOT the most liberal. I think the Speedy guidelines are vague and lack sufficent examples. I have been working on collecting examples, in an attempt to get a clearer consensus on exactly what qualifies for each case, to correct this deficiency, but since I'm working now, it's been taking longer than I had hoped. Niteowlneils 13:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Send to clean up. Geogre 12:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree and vote to remove this although I don't know who does it or how it is done. Nuggehalli 06:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) {moved from main VfD page Niteowlneils 13:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)}
 * Keep. Seems to be a figure in folklore.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Definately a notable Slavic myth. I doubt you will find much about it in English.   The Steve  09:17, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep It is listed at Slavic deities] under the Likho spelling. But I support the listing on VfD of this or any such short article which might possibly be patent nonsense. Indeed the original really was patent nonsense since no context was given to make sense of it. I wouldn't blame anyone for speedy deleting it and Meelar should be commended for placing the original here where it could be and was quickly fixed up. Jallan 18:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A valid mythical creature. It's even portrayed in movies. --Gene s 11:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Mark Richards 19:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. RustyCale 21:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)