Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footy Chicks

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 of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G3, vandalism). howch e ng {chat} 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footy Chicks[edit]

Non-notable [1]. - Liberatore(T) 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising - and of a rather objectionable type exploitation of the active female consumer Dlyons493 Talk 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Also WP:NOT for advertising, and i judge this sounds like it <<....It is a great time to become part of this new advertising initiative with Footy Chicks...>>. Obina 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apart from substituting the words "Footy Chicks" for "Lingerie League" its a direct copy of an entry on this blog. [2] Jcuk 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as teeth-grindingly annoying advertising and marketing gloss. If it can be speedied under A8 that would be even better. Sliggy 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Advert. Kusonaga 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete advertising, also a possible copyvio from http://www.lingerieleague.blogspot.com/. Sinmce this was likely posted by the same person who wrote that, it isn't really a problem -- but the article itself has a copyright notice at the moment. ARRGH! DES ^(talk) 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising, as per nom. (aeropagitica) 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisment, unnotable, text was marked as copyrighted. --Jan Smolik 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. There is nothing in the text that asserts notability. There is also the small matter of the copyvio. Capitalistroadster 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, and non-encyclopedic. Cnwb 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it doesn't even tell me what it's supposed to be, let alone establish notability. Is this vanispamcruftisement or something? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:19, 3 February 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.