Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project N.E.O.


 * 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. WP:SNOW - no point in keeping this hanging around any longer nancy  10:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Project N.E.O.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am unable to find any independent verifying information about this project. Nothing at all on Google, and the official page is a do-it-yourself webs.com site. Contested prod. ... disco spinster   talk  15:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

From the Editor of this article: Did you not read it more? There is an official released document that is in MLA-styled citation! You really expect something to be done so quickly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.114.42 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I read the whole thing in fact. The document was released by the very organization that is the subject of the article, so it's not independent. Even if it is MLA style.  ...  disco spinster   talk  01:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as not verifiable by reliable sources. Google searches only get the Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Another note from the Editor: So you'd rather be out of date? Schools would stop using Wikipedia (They already have stopped because of outdated sources) And rather more halt any possible growth of current knowledge? For the final time... it is all under wraps... if it was meant to be completely open, then Michael Adams himself would be editing this, not me! But if you want to delete, then by all means go ahead. Wordpress will gladly take all this and not care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.114.42 (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - We'd rather comply with verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Another note from the editor: Then what is your definition of verifiability? It comes from a primary source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.114.42 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - The definition is linked in my original reply above. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Xero: Definition is noted, but by your definition, my article is original and therefore, is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectNeo (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage, at all. Smells like a hoax to me. Maybe even speedy-worthy under WP:A7.  Я ehevkor ✉  21:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - no credible claim of significance CharlieEchoTango (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unverifiable and obvious nonsense. It looks like the ravings of an otaku who has lost their grip on reality and is unable to distinguish between the real world and cartoons. Roger (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Total nonsense. Probably hoax. —teb728 t c 22:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as soon as possible. There is no need to debate this idiocy. The author is obviously trying to see how long he can keep it online. -- k a i n a w &trade; 22:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, as WP:BOLLOCKS. Infantile rubbish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2011 (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.