Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HollywoodChicago.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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HollywoodChicago.com

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website that has not been deemed notable by significant coverage by any reliable source. A Google News Archive Search reflects no hits and a last-30-days search shows two passing mentions of the website. The owner of the website, Adam Fendelman, created his own article, which was deleted in snowball fashion. This website's article was created by Happynesss, identified as a sockpuppet of said website owner, an extension of his conflict of interest. A proposed deletion template added by me was removed by the same user. Due to the lack of notability by either Google search and by overwhelming AfD consensus of its site owner Adam Fendelman, his website should be deleted as well. Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertising, non-notable website. Keb25 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable, pov, unreferenced. Iamchrisryan 09:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, multiple failures.  Dei z  talk 12:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Multiple failures of notability, etc. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an article aimed only to promote the author's own website. I've had previous dealings with Fendelman, where he apparently just pretended to understand Wikipedia's policies after I explained them to him, in order to get me off his back. Anyway, why wasn't this speedied as spam?--Atlan (talk) 19:09, 14 October 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.