Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Used with permission


 * 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. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Used with permission
Not encyclopedic or notable enough to be on Wikipedia.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  03:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per reason above. --Spring Rubber 03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't have to put yourself in twice. It's not a vote, so unless your nomination is ambiguous in the extreme, a reasonable admin will count that as a "delete" recomendation.  brenneman (t) (c)  06:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - looking this one up in google is hard, because of course the phrase is very common. Even adding band still gave 371,000 hits, which somehow I don't think is realistic.  Their band page says quite clearly that they are not notable, "this 4 part band has been around since january of 2005. and thats about it with them.".  If they don't think they are notable, why should we? Zordrac 07:27, 28 November 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.