This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WindLegends[edit]

• Delete as Vanity page. The WindLegends series and its author may have some notability, but currently this entry just duplicates the CV at the author's user page User:Windlegends (which in turn comes verbatim from the promotional page at the WindLegends website). Tearlach 13:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Noteriety is questionable, it's poorly written, unoriginal, and a vanity page. aliceinlampyland 14:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a copyvio, and i have tqgged it as such, but GFDL permisison may well be forthcomming. As it stands this is obvious spam, but could possibley be rewritten to be a reasoanble article. Unless it is, however, out! DES ^(talk) 15:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of spamming, check out the whole Windlegends (talk · contribs) contribution history. Remarkable that one person can come from so many different places. Tearlach 17:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I have put another of her vanity pages up for deletion. See: Charlotte Boyett-Compo. aliceinlampyland 20:15, 8 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.