Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unpurposed.com

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unpurposed.com

Vanity, at best. Not encyclopedic. --ElTyrant 20:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure and utter nonsense that is made by a team of anons. Alexa couldn't even get a reading on this webpage. Do we really need a page for every single webpage out there?CryptoStorm 06:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Robinoke 22:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly. Author, I say to you now that calling any creative work 'the attack of the giant mutant etc' is an unfunny cliche. It would be an interesting topic for a short article, though - the ostentatious title formulation is a clear reference to 1950s American sci-fi b-movies, but as with modern-day references to film noir, the people who use it nowadays are generally referencing 1980s recreations of the 1950s originals. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and then delete again - David Gerard 18:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more high-school-vanitycruft. VladMV ٭ ^talk 19:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.