Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D69

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:53, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

D69
Spam for a message board. -- Scott ei&#960; + 1 = 0  23:30, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Such a pity it's not a speedy - David Gerard 00:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote for deletion... DELETE! Offensive article about one's interest. Not really an encylopedia article. --Nzo 23:49, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:22, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. If there's any doubt, note the threats of re-creation on this vfd's discussion page. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 20:32, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete spam. -R. fiend 20:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Posted to the talk page: "D69 is important. There are no grounds for deleting this artical. It is of interest, and should be read with respect to all members of the D69 base. DELETION IS NOT AN OPTION. If this artical is deleted it will be recreated by ALL members of D69. Thankyou for your time to read this. Cheerio." - 194.238.50.45
 * au contraire, deletion is the only option. If this "artical" is recreated it will be redeleted by ALL sysops at wikipedia. Cherrio. -R. fiend 22:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete is the only option, and continued deletion if it is recreated. Jayjg |  (Talk)  23:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.