Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geekstar clothing


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Geekstar clothing
Failure of WP:CORP. I also nominate Geekstar to be deleted as well. -- Nish kid 64 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * to be proper doesn't geekstar need it's own AFD or is it covered by this? --Charlesknight 22:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - looks like a 16 year old girl who sells t-shirts on-line. I wish her well, but I think we should wait at least until she branches out into hats and sweats. --Brianyoumans 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently it is about a non-notable teen's on-line shirt sales in the vast teenage wasteland. Buckner 1986 05:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete anything and everything ever associated with this. MiracleMat 09:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Both per WP:VSCA and NN by any reasonable definition. --Dennette 10:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to show evidence of meetign WP:CORP, only active for a year or so so no surprise there. Good luck, come back when you are on the cover of Vanity Fair. Guy 12:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, fails WP:CORP, very thinly veiled WP:VANITY and WP:SPAM. -- Kinu t /c  14:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable company. Article also looks like a copyvio of the homepage. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in a size large please. --Charlesknight 22:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Tagged as copyvio, along with identical article Geekstar.  Would have speedied but wasn't sure if it was okay to do that with AfD going on.  Apologies if I messed up.  ergot 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

his article was written by the artist geekstar there are no copyright issues, and if you thought there was a copyright issue why have you not directly contacted the artist, instead of coming to your own conclusions? peaceGeekstar 19:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is your website licensed under the GFDL? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:54, 7 September 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.