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 delete. RobertT | @ | C 01:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The article is blatant vanity. It was probably intended as an advertisement. Superm401 | Talk 09:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - betcha it's a copyvio too. Renata3 17:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's copied directly from [1]. While I don't see a copyright notice on the Web page, that's a problem. - Dalbury(talk) 19:38, 13 November 2005 (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.