The result was speedy keep. Bad faith WP:POINT nomination. Ezeu 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
It's only been around for a few months, and I see no way in which it is notable. Sure it about 7000 articles but that's less than Kamelopedia (which has also been around for 3 years as oppsoed to 4 months) which you have deleted. Moar mudkipz 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong and speedy keep - The number of articles is irrelevant and a total red herring, as is the length of time that it has been in existance. It has been the subject of MULTIPLE non-trival sources and thus is suitable for an article. -- Fredrick day 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment - The user history suggests this is a WP:POINT nom - I suggest an admin knocks it on the head. -- Fredrick day 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Bad faith WP:POINT nomination. Ezeu 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
It's only been around for a few months, and I see no way in which it is notable. Sure it about 7000 articles but that's less than Kamelopedia (which has also been around for 3 years as oppsoed to 4 months) which you have deleted. Moar mudkipz 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong and speedy keep - The number of articles is irrelevant and a total red herring, as is the length of time that it has been in existance. It has been the subject of MULTIPLE non-trival sources and thus is suitable for an article. -- Fredrick day 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment - The user history suggests this is a WP:POINT nom - I suggest an admin knocks it on the head. -- Fredrick day 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply