Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smut Shack


 * 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 recommend possible redirect to bianca.com

Smut Shack
Prodded by User:Maustrauser as advertising (which it isn't), removed by User:Kappa; however, the information here is covered more extensively and articulately at Bianca.com, so this is unnecessary and redundant. Eusebeus 09:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bianca.com. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge these two sentences, or just plain delete. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 09:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unimportant website. Maustrauser 10:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, NN website inappropriately deprodded by chronic deprodder Kappa. Kuzaar 11:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bianca.com. There's nothing here that's not already in that article as far as I can tell. Hirudo 13:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN, unsourced, duplicated elsewhere.  RGTraynor 16:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bianca.com. San Saba 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is this a bad faith nomination? I thought it was a PROD, Kappa didn't.  We were in dispute.  Thank you Eusebeus. Maustrauser 11:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Weak Merge. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:30, 28 April 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.