| Revision as of 17:20, 24 January 2006 editHolly Cheng (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators116,583 edits afd result: delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:49, 13 June 2006 edit undoPhil Boswell (talk | contribs)Administrators40,507 edits de-linking deleted image using AWBNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| The result of the debate was '''delete'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | The result of the debate was '''delete'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| No media coverage. 100 nn Google hits. Copy/paste of their page. Submitted by site owner. Fails ]. Extremely invaluable information. -- ] |
No media coverage. 100 nn Google hits. Copy/paste of their page. Submitted by site owner. Fails ]. Extremely invaluable information. -- ] 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. Haven't much of anything. --] |
*'''Delete''' per nom. Haven't much of anything. --] 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' blatant advertisement<small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> | *'''Delete''' blatant advertisement<small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> | ||
| *'''Delete''' as above. Note: I'm about to remove a spamvert image, so if you need further convincing please do check the previous revision. --] 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' as above. Note: I'm about to remove a spamvert image, so if you need further convincing please do check the previous revision. --] 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''Delete'''. I would say the MUSH itself might be popular enough to warrant an article, but this has uncorrectable POV problems as is. ] 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. I would say the MUSH itself might be popular enough to warrant an article, but this has uncorrectable POV problems as is. ] 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' advertising. p.s. to nom, ] is the same as valuable -- ]<small>|]</small> 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' advertising. p.s. to nom, ] is the same as valuable -- ]<small>|]</small> 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ** I know. --] |
** I know. --] 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' blatant advertisement, certainly as it stands. (A '''redirect''' to ] could be useful, especially if that page was made more encyclopedic, explaining more clearly the history, what is involved, etc., rather than giving precedence to the technicalities of the programming.) ] 15:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' blatant advertisement, certainly as it stands. (A '''redirect''' to ] could be useful, especially if that page was made more encyclopedic, explaining more clearly the history, what is involved, etc., rather than giving precedence to the technicalities of the programming.) ] 15:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ** Great, let's start citing ''all'' these nn mush sites in ] now! :P --] |
** Great, let's start citing ''all'' these nn mush sites in ] now! :P --] 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' non encyc, vanity, etc. ] 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' non encyc, vanity, etc. ] 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete if not tidied up''': it reads like the back of a game packet. Make it more neutral and informing. ] 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete if not tidied up''': it reads like the back of a game packet. Make it more neutral and informing. ] 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:49, 13 June 2006
- 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. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Havenmush
No media coverage. 100 nn Google hits. Copy/paste of their page. Submitted by site owner. Fails WP:V. Extremely invaluable information. -- Perfect 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Haven't much of anything. --Perfecto 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete blatant advertisement—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onthost (talk • contribs) .
- Delete as above. Note: I'm about to remove a spamvert image, so if you need further convincing please do check the previous revision. --kingboyk 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity site J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I would say the MUSH itself might be popular enough to warrant an article, but this has uncorrectable POV problems as is. Meekohi 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advertising. p.s. to nom, invaluable is the same as valuable -- Astrokey44|talk 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I know. --Perfecto 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete blatant advertisement, certainly as it stands. (A redirect to MUSH could be useful, especially if that page was made more encyclopedic, explaining more clearly the history, what is involved, etc., rather than giving precedence to the technicalities of the programming.) Carbonix 15:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Great, let's start citing all these nn mush sites in MUSH now! :P --Perfecto 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non encyc, vanity, etc. The Deviant 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if not tidied up: it reads like the back of a game packet. Make it more neutral and informing. GoldenTie 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Arbustoo 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Dimitrii 06:47, 21 January 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.