Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frolk

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frolk

Doesn't appear to be notable. Article is pure advertising anyhow. Xezbeth 06:44, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Clean up. ~~I suggest: Decide considering the best rated poll option, decision to be valid until this or another poll type (ex.undelete poll) says otherwise, min_voters 5 in 1 day~~ Iasson 08:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Please discuss Vfd policy on talk or elsewhere. Further out of process comments of this kind on the main VfD page will be deleted. sjorford 22:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Vfd policy does not define the decision rule to be followed in order to extract the result , so I think I am allowed to suggest one until Vfd policy clearly defines a rule. In the other hand Vfd policy prohibits the deletion of votes. You have just deleted my vote, so you are against policy. Please dont do it again. Thank you Iasson 07:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like a self-published band, so non-notable. --Carnildo 08:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, looks like an advertisement copied and pasted from elsewhere. Megan1967 23:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad. P M C 07:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. dbenbenn | talk 04:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but clean. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:56, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.