Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Malicious


 * Sourceforge project by two unnamed people. No Google references. DJ Clayworth 20:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are Google references and their "homepage" does seem to exist ( http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=351129 ) - but not notable at all. Pteron 21:44, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Only google hit I see is at Sourceforge, where the project statistics page is telling. 485 page views in 2.5 months, and three downloads in that time. I don't know where the line for notability should be drawn, but this is on the wrong side of it. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 01:15, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, there doesn't seem to be much credibility, and on the surface, not so attractive. Actually listening to this music and the idea of open source going with it seems very unprecedented, though.  In short, I believe all this entry needs is rewrite. nrfritze 10:38 Apr 16, 2004
 * Sock puppet. RickK 21:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I have recently done a search through various searching engines for this project malicious, and users mikek2k and ahw_2. I found references of the users on SDF, and PM is also widley seen and used off of various sources: it seemed to have started at geocities (which still exists), and the hosting comes from various servers.  (this would account for the low hit count @ sourceforge).  I would agree with nrfritze and say this does seem very interesting.  Plus, I've run searches on several Canadian servers, with which I am well aquainted.  Nothing pops out. DLecarre 11:52 Apr 16, 2004
 * Sock puppet. RickK 21:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Simply hasn't had the chance to blossom completely as of yet. Perhaps a tweaking of the writing to include details, especially of the authors, of whom some complained were vague. Definite keep. Has potential. Haruka. 11:29 Apr 16, 2004
 * Can't tell if this is a sock puppet or not. RickK 21:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cribcage 06:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Possible vanity/advert, see my attempt to talk to the contributor. Andrewa 07:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment, RE: I'm not the creator of this article, this just happened to be the first article I have reviewed since I have looked at the Wikipedia deletion debate page. nrfritze 12:38 Apr 17, 2004
 * Right. RickK 21:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems I was barking up the wrong tree before, so we must assume this is by an anon, possibly one of the project developers. But, in any case, the article gives no reason to keep. The other edit from this IP (on the same day) was reverted as vandalism. Andrewa 07:05, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote that this can now be removed from Wikipedia, since there is so much of debate over something small. I spared the article and submitted it to E2.  nrfritze 10:50 Apr 18, 2004
 * Comment: Thanks for the input, but I'm not sure your vote counts at this stage, noting that you deny writing the article (above). Please consider becoming a contributor, as I suggested before on your talk page. Andrewa 18:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)