Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marine Team 6

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 23:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marine Team 6

As far as I know, no such naming system exists for Marine units (Google for "Marine Team 6" dredges up exactly 3 results. The author may be confused with Navy SEAL teams (who do have a numbered naming system), but it's more likely pure fantasy. Borderline speedy, in my opinion. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• 'Delete'. The author probably means SEAL_Team_SIX. If not, then clarify with sources. The author has duplicated this link all over. Mmmbeer 01:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to SEAL_Team_SIX, a much better article about the same subject. - Thatdog 01:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Redirecting to SEAL Team SIX would be misleading, I think. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, changing my vote to Delete. - Thatdog 02:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. No reason to perpetuate the wrong name. Friday 02:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE,IS A REAL ELITE UNIT!AND IS IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE WORLDS SPECIAL FORCES!!!!
• Delete, redirect doesn't make sense as it's not a common mistake. --fvw* 06:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probably nonsense, possibly fiction, certainly not notable, if this is incorrect, provide sources. Usrnme h8er 08:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, probably nonsense or fiction. jni 14:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, even if it does exist the article says nothing except that it is secret. Uber nemo 14:27, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia readers do not have appropriate clearance. We don't have information on the secret orange epoxy undercoating used on US Naval submarines, and we shouldn't have information on secret special forces teams. When it becomes public knowlege, it might be suitable to write an article with unclassified material in it. At least that article will actually have information. I think it's pretty darn important that encyclopedia articles have information in them, don't you? Pedant 20:17, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
• IDIOTS! YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS,AN ENCYCLOPEDIA IS FOR FINDING THINGS EVEN IF THE ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF INFO. MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST DELETE ALL THE SMALL ARTICLES ON THIS SITE!!JUST BECAUSE YOU CANT FIND IT ON GOOGLE DOESN'T MEAN ITS NOT REAL ALMOST LIKE IF YOU CANT FIND IT ON WIKIPEDIA IT DOESNT MEAN ITS NOT REAL THIS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY AND BE UPDATED OVER TIME.THE REASON I CREATED THE PAGE ON MARINE TEAM 6 IS BECAUSE A FAMILY MEMBER OF MINE IS IN IT!!!IT IS A BRAND NEW UNIT WITH HIGHLY SPECIALIZED OPERATORS.MAYBE YOU SHOULD RECONSIDER??THANKS AGAIN
  • Calling us names doesn't help your case. Wikipedia's function is to present publicly verifiable information. It's true that the verification doesn't have to be online. If you can provide some document we can reference to verify this exists, let us know. If it's all secret, perhaps you should reconsider whether you want to be responsible for announcing its existence. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• • ok i'm sorry i may have been out of hand with the 'name calling' but i still believe you should keep the article or allow it to be recreated if more info surface's

Wouldn't it be easier just to offer a reference to a 3rd party source for the information than worrying about whether the editors are enlightened or unenlightened people? Cite your sources, and the whole argument goes away. Geogre 13:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, someone's caps lock key got stuck. Delete unless references can be provided to show that this even exists, I'm finding absolutely nothing on them. Decapod73 08:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Does anybody want to stop by the Library of congress and check the book that he has cited? (Strike force : U.S. Marine Corps special operation by Von Hassell, Agostino VE23 .V65 1991) It kind of worries me that he says the sources have been reinterpreted. I also don't know why it would be in any of these books, as the article makes it sound pretty secretive. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:22, 30 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.