Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch a perv

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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catch a perv

Non-notable, possible advertising/spam Tim1988 ^talk 17:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Website launched just last month. No indication of notability, or passing WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 17:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate directory. ReverendG 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. The Oxford Mail coverage mentioned is not a news story but an editorial regarding the site. If further and more significant press coverage occurs, we can always recreate the article - but for the moment it seems pretty clear-cut. Jumbo Snails 01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Since the Oxford Mail op-ed goes towards notability. But the lack of anything WP:V makes this not really doable as an article right now. JoshuaZ 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Is possibly the most controversial website currently in the UK, with mention of media and police it looks to become even more notable.

• Comment I live in the U.K. and keep up to date with the news, and I've never heard the site mentioned. --Tim1988 ^talk 18:38, 26 September 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.