Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWin

One-line ad for IWin.com. Need I say more? -- Mud 15:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Ick! Er, I mean delete. "An exclamation point should only be used in direct discourse, and then when one of the parties is on fire." :-) Geogre 16:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Was promotional. I've now replaced the text with the single sentence, "iwin.com is an online gambling site." I believe this to be accurate and NPOV—but a nonencyclopedic substub. Might reconsider my vote in the unlikely event that someone adds neutral, interesting, encyclopedic information to the article. Dpbsmith 16:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• We already have an article at IWin.com. Redirect and delete. The article IWin.com isn't a whole lot better than this one, but it's a stub. blankfaze | •­• 20:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect and delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• How can you redirect and delete? Keep as redirect. anthony (see warning)
• Well, which do you want to do? Redirect or delete? I don't see how you can do both - either IWin is redirected to IWin.com, or both of them are deleted, since they are clearly the same topic. I'll lean towards redirect/keep - IWin.com could do with some work, but I guess the subject's basically sound. - IMSoP 01:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) (via edit conflict)
• Changing this into a redirect would sufficiently delete the current content, but I meant to imply that deleting it would also delete the original history leaving us with a fresh new redirect. Sorry 'bout the mix-up. - Lucky 6.9 00:10, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Then create redirect (since the IWin.com article is a stub with some info on what the site is and some corporate info). Chris N. 20:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I got bold and redirected it. Keep as redirect. I see no point in bothering to delete the history. --ssd 05:54, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)