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 Keep. Thε HaloΘ 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This article was speedy deleted as a G4 repost from this AfD. A DRV consensus overturned in light of new evidence of notability, for which see the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep folowing new evidence. I'm stubbing the incredibly nasty looking article in the meantime. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per evidence at DRV. That is plenty. Recury 16:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep, There is sufficient reason to keep this article, and sufficient evidence. roostarr 02:50, 11 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.