- 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 Speedy delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Teebeedee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Seems unnotible - declided speedy deletion for spam, but no references other than it's own site that I can see. RT | Talk 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced, fails NPOV, poorly written, almost qualifies as an Ad. Can I place my grandparents here :) Dustitalk to me 18:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self-referential apparent dead-end Plutonium27 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability requirements, could almost be deleted as advertising. Shell babelfish 22:22, 12 March 2008 (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.