The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopaedic, I think. I can't see anything salvageable in this article, and I don't think this subject is very notable. Text of article resembles a porn mag, possible copyvio perhaps (although, likely original fan drooling). Anyway, I think this article largely speaks for itself. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopaedic, I think. I can't see anything salvageable in this article, and I don't think this subject is very notable. Text of article resembles a porn mag, possible copyvio perhaps (although, likely original fan drooling). Anyway, I think this article largely speaks for itself. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply