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 shoot in the head with an Benelli M3. Headshot!! Daniel Bryant 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seafood Network

[edit]

Vanity article on Australian Counter-Strike server. The 1107 member figure is based on spurious info introduced by 211.30.128.188 (talk · contribs), sFn website suggests six members at most. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources to establish the notability of the group. Leebo ^T/C 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers displayed in article are based on recordings from the Seafood Network's counterstrike server ranking system. Suggested six members are leaders who work on inmrovement of the Seafood Network and administration of servers. There are in fact many more members than this as suggested by information from server console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.137.167 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 March 2007

Comment this is mostly irrelevant to the concerns being addressed, which have to do with a lack of sources. Can you provide any third party sources that talk about the group? Leebo ^T/C 10:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Leebo StuartDouglas 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not notable. Acalamari 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sow the ocean with salt: This near-to-spurious vanity article is about a website that hasn't seemingly been updated in over a year, according to its main page. There are zero hits on Australian Google for it, if you leave out its own server [1]. Fails WP:ATT, NN, and probably WP:BULLSHIT as well. Nice try, guys. RGTraynor 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ORG. Ronbo76 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as new sources cited and various searches have failed to come up with any. Capitalistroadster 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...maelgwn talk 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously nn. Lankiveil 11:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Not suitable for an encyclopedia. -- Wenli 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, does not meet any of our article standards. Burntsauce 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.