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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 13:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BowieNet[edit]

Insufficient information for own article. Should be a part of David Bowie article. (External link to official site already in article. Lengthier content apparently pruned as advertising. — ERcheck (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Hardly any context, advert of somewhat. Eaomatrix 11:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with David Bowie. BTLizard 11:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if expanded ~~as this will be a pretty easy one to expand~~ & will make too big a section in Bowie's already overlong article ~~- I'll try to do it if I get the chance~~ — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- World's quickest retraction - still keep if expanded otherwise delete, but having tried to plough through the turgid mess of fansites and distinct lack of mainstream coverage, washing my hands of this one — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and per eaomatrix also the article created removed the afd from the article already so if does not tell something about him i do not know what willOo7565 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times is this going to be nominated for deletion? It's already been saved once - surely that should be enough. Ban that fool who nominated it again. 86.152.100.110 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, by the way Aleczandah 19:50, 1 May 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.