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 keep. Keep as disamb page SilkTork *YES! 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should probabally just revert it back to the redirect. It seem to be quite plasuable and it has existed as a redirect for almost 15 months.--76.71.214.47 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to the redirect - Torque per 76.71.214.47. I have removed the A3 tag, which does not apply, since this is a valid stub. I have done searches for sources and have been unable to find anything to establish the notability of this video game, so a redirect is the best course of action. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with dab per below. Cunard (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: should this be a redirect to Torque, or a disambiguation between torque and people bearing the surname Tork, including Peter Tork of the Monkees? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a dab page is a good idea - I'll start one at Tork (disambiguation) which can be moved to the primary title when this AfD finishes if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to the redirect. The page had a purpose before it was changed, no sense in deleting it as it will probably be recreated as the old redirect anyway. --Taelus (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with disambig page as previously stated. --Taelus (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present form: restoring redirect would make sense. A fairly brief search on Google produced only one reference to this game, a forum post at [1], which says "We've been developing a racing game named Tork...we hope to finish the project in a short time. Currently, looking for volunteered artists". Clearly a product of amateur programmers, who have presumably put it on Wikipedia in the hope of getting publicity. No evidence of notability at all: in fact if it said a little more it might qualify for a speedy delete as promotional (G11). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2009 (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.