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 article seems to be very unencyclopedic in nature. Very vague info. Sushant gupta 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment uh, very vague, really quite nonexistent. I'll go drop a note at nominator's asking if correct name. Shenme 06:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep in its current state. Nonexistent. Alex43223T | C | E 07:25, 6 April 2007 (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.