- 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 TAKE OUT EVERYTHING. — JIP | Talk 10:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hacking organization vanity. warning: Comes with a comment that says not to "remove anything." ;) — brighterorange (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity, non notable, unencyclopaedic, advertising chowells 20:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn group's adcruft...--Isotope23 20:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advertisements. --Jacquelyn Marie 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blatent advertising. Could be classified as copyvio too, since it is copied from the link. But where is the comment that you speak of? Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment's an actual HTML comment. Click "edit" and you'll see it. Haeleth
- Delete per nom. Haeleth 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. The comment at the top of the article source is incompatible with the GFDL. --Carnildo 23:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Remove everything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (and the others have a point, it could perhaps be speedied for copyvio) - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:26, 19 October 2005 (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.