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 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri launder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Autobiographical vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 06:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Delete as above, also appears to be a conflict of interest. Duke of Whitstable 13:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: doesn't look sufficiently notable (72 Google hits, and nothing I can find in NewsBank). Tearlach 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. COI article. Author should wait for consensus of other editors before adding this information. Appears to fail notability. EdJohnston 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Area 10 Project Space Peckham? Kollaborators? — Athænara ✉ 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See the the AfD for Kollaborators. I would favor adding the Area 10 article to this deletion debate. Is it allowed to just add it? Perhaps we can do so if the nominator approves. EdJohnston 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a quick Google search turned up just 46 hits, none of them appearing to meet the Reliable Source and Notability Guidelines' requirements. I'm willing to overlook conflict of interest issues and reconsider if notability is demonstrated. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.