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. Sandstein 08:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eck Louvell[edit]

Fake. Only Ghit is Wikipedia. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources or evidence of notability. Wiw8 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's a hoax, but I can't find any ghit that isn't WP, one of the 'sources' provided doesn't actually refer to the phrase, and the other doesn't meet the WP:RS criteria. --Ged UK (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the link [1] seems to make clear that this article is promotional in nature. JJL (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm Albert Nox and the article is not promotional at all in nature - it is a new style of glamour photography - that even though Wylie Beckert is "all in deletion for" - she inspires my artwork and I didn't know that I had to have permission for that - It is not a hoax, it is new and maybe it doesn't have enough credibility yet. I will post it again later if that possible. AlbertNox —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertNoxx (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it has attained notability to the tune of multiple secondary sources writing about it, then perhaps. Until then, no. JuJube (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2008 (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.