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. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I previously speedied this article as it did not assert notability (per WP:CSD#A7). The article as it stands now does not meet WP:WEB or WP:BIO. -- Merope ^Talk 15:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Leuko 15:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hello32020 15:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Delete because although you are all admins and high up this is a good article Deadbath 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) .

• • Actually, it's a bad article. There's nothing in the article that shows that the web site satisfies the WP:WEB criteria, with all of the cited sources being the web site itself. Wikipedia is not a World Wide Web directory. Uncle G 16:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Valrith 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - no indication that this meets WP:WEB. GassyGuy 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - the article has even been edited to make it seem to have a higher Alexa rank (circa 5,000, whereas Alexa reports trhe rank closer to to 200,000) -- Ratarsed 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 17:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Delete per nom. 13:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.4.32 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom, and per WP:WEB. Incidentally, even if the Alexa rank were 5000, that still wouldn't be close to the <1000 referenced at Alexa test, and that isn't even an official policy, and probably wouldn't be applicable here at any rate (Wikipedia:Search engine test#Non-applicable in some cases, such as pornography). Not sure whether the fact that she frequently stars with "Sarah from Its Sarah Time" counts as an assertion of notability, but doubt that it provides adequate grounds for inclusion. ergot 18:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Delete per nom. 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.4.32 (talk • contribs)

• Above !vote struck as User:84.66.4.32 attempted to !vote twice in a row; see page edit history. ergot 13:49, 13 October 2006 (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.