- 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination by 211.30.53.196 (talk · contribs). Technical nomination only (no recommendation from me). DarthVader 03:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think they should pay Wikipedia if they want to place an ad. - Richardcavell 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A "relatively unknown" website (per the article) which doesn't even have its own ___domain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability is entirely too limited ju66l3r 05:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not establishing notability is one thing, but asserting lack of notability puts it straight in the trash bin. Opabinia regalis 05:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - relatively unknown says it all. Kevin 09:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - relatively unknown - advert, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:59, 12 June 2006 (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.