Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phatchown


 * 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 of the debate was delete. –  Rob e  rt  01:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Phatchown
Was listed as a speedy, but is technically a non-notable musical group and not a non-notable person. However, it might even be a hoax: the phrase gets only one irrelevant google hit. Either that or a misspelling, but barring new info: Delete. -- SCZenz 23:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, because we all really wish that CSD:A7 included band vanity. Peyna 00:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and also delete duplicate article Phat chown. Demiurge 01:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur with deletion of the duplicate article. -- SCZenz 09:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity, non-notable. Jtmichcock 01:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- verifiable - its in original namespace - why should I care how notable it is Wikipedia is not on paper-- --(U | T | C) 08:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, how is it verifiable? And since you know that WP:NOT paper, you also know that WP:NOT an indescriminate collection of information. This is not the place to promote a little-known band. -- SCZenz 09:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Ewok Slayer apparently is just trolling all of the AfD's because he is upset about his article getting AfD'd and a lot of negative comments about it. Peyna 15:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- verifiable - It has its own website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.178.251 (talk • contribs)
 * delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 07:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete band vanity, unverifiable (no sources other than the band's website). Chick Bowen 00:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have redirected Phat chown to Phatchown as a duplicate. The closing admin should apply her decision to both pages.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 00:08, 8 December 2005 (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.