This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 11:10, 11 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:10, 11 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- 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 keep. only deleve !vote sock of nominator. Best to start over; no prejudice against renomination if a policy-based rationaile can be articulated. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Undertow Music
- Undertow Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
User Bob Andrews UTOW (ie undertow records) and highberry are same person and appear to be sole interested editors of this page and are the subject of the article. Request deletion for vanity page and non-notoriety. Jamminjimmy (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep was already deemed notable by objective user. several notable artists, albums, all with extensive external references. user suggesting deletion has personal agenda. he opened a sock puppet investigation against me that was closed finding no abuse. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- note Subject of article tried to remove afd template to artificially close afd. Jamminjimmy (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- note removed template by mistake. didn't know the procedure. i'm not a wiki expert. does not change the fact that article has already been deemed notable and your attempted deletion is motivated by personal vendetta. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, the article was not deemed notable -- it was deemed that there was a credible assertion of notability, rendering it ineligible for speedy deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Delete as it is a vanity page created by owner of company with no other editor involvement. Hackwayinteresting (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Hackwayinteresting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- note to closing admin I have striken the !vote of the nominator's sockpuppet per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jamminjimmy Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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.