Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlecam.com


 * 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   delete.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Battlecam.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I don't think is actually notable: all the coverage seems to be PR based. I suppose a merge might conceivable be possible.  DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This was previously deleted back in February of 2011, so it might be worth checking to see how similar the two pages are. Articles for deletion/Battlecam I thought I recognized the name!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  01:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - the only real coverage stems from a stupid publicity stunt, which might be good for an article on said stunt if the stunt had had some sort of actual notability but doesn't really apply to thing it was intended to attract attention to. --Calton | Talk 03:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A quite remarkable example of a statement which relaxes in an idyll of perfect sense if you know what it means already and is is hellbent on a collision course to meaninglessness if you do not. Deletionists are not writers, it shows, and in some cases it is probably a good thing. Anarchangel (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence of notability. And SALT since previously deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * no need to salt: it was I who previously deleted it as an a7, but then restore it thinking it not clear enough for a speedy.  DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.