Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DDRUK (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 11:31Z 

DDRUK (Second Nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Website does not establish notoriety as the sources given seem to be frivolous. It has been up for an AfD before as well, and it had been established that it would kept in that. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk ) 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the media sources are substantial. There's no reason this should have been renominated. Nardman1 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why are two of the "media sources" broken links? --N Shar 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As the owner of the website, I won't vote out of etiquette, however in reply to the above, the links were moved and I have updated them. I also have more to add to the In The Press section, I'll hopefully have them up by the end of the day. Mystcb 12:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have noticed the incorrect header for the AFD has been put up, as this is the second time it has been nominated, can this please be updated. Mystcb 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just been reading up on the Conflicts of Interests page in regards to this article. If you feel my additions have been a conflict of interest, then please do say in the talk page, so that I can either correct myself, or get another person to add it. I apologise if I have over stepped any line at any point. Mystcb 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable media sources are cited for referance, and broken links are in the process of being fixed. Ninja Steve 15.34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are sufficient. Nifboy 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain As a member of the website, I'll abstain from this one, however it looks as if the sources are reliable and sufficient. VegaDark 08:38, 9 February 2007 (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.