Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myallsearch

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, author requests —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 08:14Z

[edit] Myallsearch

nn website, no relevant Google hits. de-prodded. — getcrunk what?! 20:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Totally nn, 3 google hits [1], none relevant. --IslaySolomon 20:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (CallieSulake) Not sure why you think this should be deleted. This is my first article on Wikipedia I dont see what wrong with it. and youv'e just said NoNoNo. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CallieSulake (talk • contribs).
• Comment I don't see anything wrong with this article. it is a website. The description is informative and not advertising at all. Perhaps IslyaSolomon has baised views about this? debbie King Debbie@quizmania.tv --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Debbieking (talk • contribs).

• Comment Not sure what bias there would be, and besides, just because the article is informative doesn't mean it deserves existence on WP. HumbleGod 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (CallieSulake) I should point out to the wikipedians that want my first article removed: Look at the article. The website started in "JUNE". The website could be in the process of being indexed by Google/yahoo/ask etc... You can not disagree. Thank you and good day :) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CallieSulake (talk • contribs).

• Comment But, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The possibility that it might become significant is not enough. And no I don't have "biased views on this" whatever the bloody hell that's supposed to mean. --IslaySolomon 21:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia is not the place to promote your websites. Please read through the notability guidelines for website articles. — getcrunk what?! 00:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB, CallieSulakie if you don't understand why we're saying this should be deleted please ready WP:WEB it is Wikipedia's policy on inclusion of websites. --Pboyd04 21:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wait until it is popular and then write an article about it (unless you are associated with the website somehow, then let someone else write an article about it to avoid violating WP:VANITY). Recury 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, also fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Tychocat 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn, WP:WEB. HumbleGod 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, author admits that the website is not notable yet. Try again if it does become notable. NawlinWiki 02:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agrees With NawlinWiki (CallieSulake) Fair enough, Im glad you were nice, unlike some wikipedians which still live with their mothers *cough* "IslaySolomon". You may delete this NawlinWiki. I will try again when the website is listed and more notable.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CallieSulake (talk • contribs) .

• Comment The author's requested this article's deletion, so I've tagged it per CSD-G7 - author requests deletion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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.