Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custodes

Custodes
"An award winning wedpage" apparently.  Funny, I'd expect such an award winning site to have more than two sites linking to it (one of which is the author's Yahoo profile). Delete. David Johnson 01:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why? (<---comment from User:MrWoodpigeon)

Because it's not notable by any objective measure and doesn't deserve an encyclopedia entry? Delete. --Calton 02:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Didn't know that as I'm a newbie here and thought I'd try my hand at one entry. Ok peeps? Want to listen to Rizgar's Blamwellamum of Woont now? Keep--Mr Woodpigeon 03:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Holy Beet, Batman, Delete. DCEdwards1966 05:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the Alexa test. Zachlipton 07:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. non-notable - Drstuey 13:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whoa... not-notable, unencyclopedic article.  --Randy 02:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not quite a candicate for BJAODN, but perhaps not far from it. Utterly not notable. Atrocious spelling. Wow. --Improv 06:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Deleted!. I have decided to delete my entry on this webpage myself. Not due to the couple of “offensive” emails I received, but to the distasteful and often inane remarks that have been left here. I wouldn’t mind if those of you with deletest tendencies offered up some valid points as to why you use it off the page, so as to make myself a better user and writer here. But sadly that’s been lacking. I’m not going to bother returning to see the rubbish written after this post, but you’ve got my email if you have anything intelligent and worthwhile to say. --Mr Woodpigeon 11:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)