Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbine : Trenchcoat Assassins

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. Mailer Diablo 14:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbine : Trenchcoat Assassins

nn fancruft Ektar 18:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Googling [Columbine "Trenchcoat Assassins"] produces one solitary hit, the wikilink in the Columbine disambiguation page. Delete as non-notable and insensitive modding fancruft, and strip from disambig page. -- Saberwyn 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable Halflife 2 mod, WP:SOFTWARE violation.  (aeropagitica)  06:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Promotional spam. David Hoag 06:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Who knows, maybe it'll become a cult classic someday. Grandmasterka 07:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Remove from disambig page as Saberwyn says. I'm sure this might become well-known (for tastelessness) but it hasn't been released yet. ProhibitOnions 13:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, and I hope the creator/s reconsider this idiocy, because if this mod is released, I predict they will become far more notable than they expected, in ways they won't appreciate. RGTraynor 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ProhibitOnions and JzG. Haikupoet 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If it is the sole google hit then it cant possibly be an advertisment. Insensitivity is no excuse to delete articles. Only delete when the summer of 2006 has passed and nothing came of it or the mod is released. That is rational and resonable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.74.195.249 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 April 2006.

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.