Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agenparl

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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agenparl

Delete. Vanity or vain page. No link to this page. Panairjdde 10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, article appears verifiable, press service is presumably notable, and vanity alone isn't grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is important, why no other article links to it? Are we going to have an article for every press agency in the world?--Panairjdde 16:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't even close to grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's revert the question. Is it important? No, delete.--Panairjdde 18:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Unimportant isn't the same as non-notable, otherwise articles like Bulbasaur, Air Force Amy, and Phil Linz would be long gone. Monicasdude 19:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Phil Linz?! Why are we picking on Phil Linz? He hit two home runs in the 1964 World Series - not too many people can say that! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep valid stub. Wikipedia is not paper, and the press service of the Italian parliament is notable enough for us. Smerdis of Tlön 19:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above considerations Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:46, 21 March 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.