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 previous deletion was valid. Recreation and subsequent AfD was not valid. Pure and simple policy wonking. Nick 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was speedy deleted by User:JzG under the summary WP:CSD criteria A7 (no assertion of notability) and G11 (blatant advertising).[1] I disagree with the rationale for speedy deletion and as such have restored the article and put it up for afd to see what is the consensus for it. I hold no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. Jersey Devil 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See nothing satisfying WP:WEB, borderline advertising. --Fang Ailitalk 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WEB per Fang Aili. --John 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frankly it is close on a speedy G11, but nevertheless let's run it through the process Pedro | Chat 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline A7, borderline G11. Fails WP:WEB. Definitely a delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Fang Ali, consider mentioning on the main Malkin page. JoshuaZ 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - someone, please, show me where there is an assertion of notability. Martinp23 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially A7. Also, I fail to see the reason for undeleting this when obviously is fails WP:WEB and as such was rightly speedy deleted by Guy. MartinDK 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is material for speedy deletion, but in this case I would prefer to let the debate run its course so there are no questions later when we need to throw it in the lake with cascading protection cement shoes. Burntsauce 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - This was speedy deleted in December of 2006, any particular reason to resurect it now? Is the venture even still around? If so, it might be notable enough now for a real article. --Rocksanddirt 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Only two sources: Hot Air (the subject) and Malkin (the subject). Spam, no asseriton of notability, valid A7 and G11, and lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge it with Michelle what's-her-name. one and two. And that was after ten seconds of searching, so I guarantee there's many more where that came from. NY Sun and Wash Post? Knee-jerk, anyone? Come on, now. Make some effort. Rockstar (T/C) 23:10, 26 July 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.