Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Paint

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. Sango123 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Paint

This page has been proded twice by two independent editors; the webpage described doesn't come close to reaching WP:WEB and is completely non-notable. Prosfilaes 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - given that it's not by google, the use of the trademarked name is inappropriate. The subject of the article itself is almost useless. - Richardcavell 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's just someones toy code. Artw 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Kchase T 00:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; full disclosure: I'm the original {{prod}}der. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trademark violation of google. Non notable website anyway. --Ageo020 01:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The bulk of this article is about how Google Paint doesn't work very well. Non notable anyway. --Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs} 02:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 06:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 08:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom, Danielrocks123, and Richardcavell. --S-man 08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable website and a trademark infringement of Google. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Completely non-notable. Trademark misuse Localzuk ^(talk) 13:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article pretty much admits it's not notable. JIP | Talk 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--DINOMAN 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or redirect to Google Page Creator. --Gray Porpoise 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No need for it since it's not even Google's. --Nishkid64 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB and what's more its not part of Google. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 06:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or Redirect to Google or a related page. — Wackymacs 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly no reason for a speedy delete as it harms no one. A google search turns up quite a few hits, that makes it notable if somebody else is talking about it --matador300 21:22, 11 August 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.