Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google imitation


 * 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 Delete. --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Google imitation
Delete - lacks notability, importance, and appears to be original research --mtz206 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn example of phishing. &mdash; AKADriver &#x260E;  03:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How in the world can it be phishing when the logos outright say something different from "Google"? Do you expect people to think "Ooh, coloured letters. This must be Google!"? J I P  | Talk 09:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, absent of proof this is a phenomenon or real problem.  Dei zio  03:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Richardcavell 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are enough websites copying Google to make them as a whole notable. Arctic Gnome 05:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - if this is true, the site should provide external examples other than the two redundant one's given, which I suspect are the author's. --mtz206 12:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, article asserts no notability. J I P  | Talk 09:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn, unverifiable, original research. --Ter e nce Ong 12:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I want to give it a weak keep, but I just can't see how Google-copying is notable or problematic. Perhaps if the article explained this. --Ginkgo100 17:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because the phenomenon is real and the article can be expanded way beyond its current content. Tyrenius 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I was on the fence until I saw that the creator's username is Piguy and one of the imitations given is pi-guy.co.nr. That pushed it over the edge for me. -- Kicking222 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability, looks like spam.  ergot 16:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, for now. If this thing becomes more widespread and problematic, an article may be fine in the future.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  21:03, 30 April 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.