- 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blantant spam. Speedy delete if possible (although I can't find a good category for it), otherwise simple delete as soon as possible. --Nlu 10:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Karol 11:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I love the "our solutions". How NPOV. Superm401 | Talk 11:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, blatant advert. Nothing worth keeping in case it's notable enough for a rewrite. Speedy if possible. - Mgm|(talk) 15:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. And, once again, curse the unfortunate fact that "blatant advert" is not yet a criterion for speedy deletion. Here's to the happy day that omission is rectified. — Haeleth Talk 18:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom. The only Google hits are mirrors of this article. - Dalbury (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Why, why, why is there no Speedy Deletion criterion for this sort of idiocy? Reyk 21:03, 13 November 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.