Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigFooty/Archive1


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 15:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

BigFooty
Article does not establish notability; website described does not meet WP:WEB and is not even above the Alexa 50,000; wikilinks are red because the article is rife with self-reference, non-NPOV, and vandalism ju66l3r 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:WEB. --Porqin 14:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Tu s  pm (C 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  --nathanbeach   16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, vanity, crap. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There have been no mentions of this forum in the Australian media at all according to an Australian media database. It appears to fail WP:WEB. It should be deleted " using Nathan Van Berlo's scientific formula." Capitalistroadster 07:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 07:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- nn web vanity. - Longhair 07:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete total vanity, non-notable. -Royalguard11Talk 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:43, 27 July 2006 (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.