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. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CoolJunkie.com[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination,. Originally a procedural deletion with the reason "Non-notable local (and now defunct) website fails WP:WEB" but ineligible as has been listed and contested previously. Views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity article per WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Written by a trio of promotional accounts with strangely overlapping edits. Note that I was the original PRODder. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to see here, move along. (Not notable, non-encyclopedic). LaMona (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2014 (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.