Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Field 2

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. There is nothing to merge. Proto::type 11:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle Field 2[edit]

This article has been merged to Battlefield 2: Modern Combat as of 22:06 July 23, 2006. -werdnanoslen 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on talk page as to whether the page should be merged in Battlefield 2 or just deleted. The article is badly written, contains virtually no information already included in Battlefield 2 and should be deleted and redirected, judging by the poor quality of its contents and the lack of useful info. Martinp23 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

- Nom had material removed by Hunter91 (talk · contribs), now put back Martinp23 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge any worthwile content (I'm not sure that there is) then Redirect WilyD 20:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Just plain Delete. Artw 22:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
redirect probable search term. Not really seeing anything worth merging. --Pboyd04 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge this page should be merged it has valuable contrabutions and a vandal delted the icon for it to be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter91 (talk • contribs)
- Comment I removed the merge template replacing it with an AfD, as with an afd the decision can be merge. As I wrote in my nom, there was a lack of consensus on the talk page which is why I took the steps which I have done. Martinp23 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- this page should be merged as it has been the victim of vandals determined to muck up anything i contribute to because for some reason they have a personal vendetta against me.--Hunter91 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Battlefield 2, or just Delete. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 15:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Change the page name to 'A political history of Islam' then we will have a far more constructive artical. --Mr blobby 19:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

- Comment - What on earth is going on here - do NOT delete votes - if you feel a user is a sockpuppet, then you should comment on it, not remove the vote made by the editor. --Charlesknight 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete "battle field 2", everything mentioned in original is alot better--General Oumrov 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC) - This was deleted by another editor and I am trying to ensure this vote is counted --Charlesknight 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

- Delete This page is useless and has a much better predessor. --Dev Alahan 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC) - This voted was deleted by Hunter91 (talk · contribs). See Charlesknight's comment above. Martinp23 22:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete There doesn't appear to be anything to merge. GassyGuy 07:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete What is the fuss about this. Delete it! There is nothing really need to merge. Perhaps hunter91 or another conributor can copy a couple of lines. Apart from that it really isn't neccessary. Hunter91, should also watch out how he is treating other users. U do not delete other peoples opinion. They can voice their own opinion. If u do suspect them of vandalism or a sock puppet, take it up with an administrator. It makes u look like a vandaliser yourself otherwise!--Chombawomba 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

- Comment litraly all these votes are by the same people but have created other sock puppet acounts i suggest the votting should be disgarded and admin should decide becasue this is simpley ridiculous i have recived about 10 e-mails from the vandals who openly admit to me and have to other users such as David Comley to being sock puppet acounts many admin also recognise these acounts as sock puppets and are trying to get them banned.

--Hunter91 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

- Comment Which Admin? Where is this discussed? --Charlesknight 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge this page has usefull contributions and has been the victim of vandals who wish to have it deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.34 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment This IP votes twice in this afd discussion (see below). Martinp23 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete' I can see nothing worth keeping, alternatly you could change the page name to 'A political history of Islam' as i recomended, as it would probably reduce the probability of anybody accidentally stumbling upon the page.--Mr blobby 14:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete' Having checked out both this page and the battlefield 2 page - I say delete - this page is not needed. --Charlesknight 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

- Comment charles knight it was discussed on my talk page and you have voted twice please remove the second vote this is exactly what i am talking about you are a vandal with sock puppet acounts trying to influece the voting and now you have voted twice! --Hunter91 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment I would respectfully request that a) you refrain from calling people Sockpuppets and b) you carefully check the page before making such remarks I have voted ONCE. --Charlesknight 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I do not know Charlesknight, but having worked with him on other articles, he seems an upright and honest user and if he does have sockpuppets, he would not use them here. Dev920

Delete' There is no need for this article. We already have one on it. Seriphyn 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

- Comment the above vote was done by a sock puppet--Hunter91 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

- - Comment How dare you accuse me of being a sock puppet! I'm now reporting you to an admin. I am fed up with this. Seriphyn 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment Seriphyn is not a sock puppet of anyone. His editing style does not match any other user involved in this dispute; I can also vouch for him, as a disinterested user(check my contributions, by all means), as I know him offline and he does not have any sockpuppets. Dev920 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge has decent content that could be usefull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.34 (talk • contribs)
- Comment This IP votes twice in this afd discussion (see above). Martinp23 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete This is not only not the name of the game, it is poorly written and the article already exists under the game's correct name. Dev920 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge if any non-duplicated content can be found, otherwise Redirect. According to WP:REDIRECT: Redirects are used to "aid searches on certain terms" and to "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely...by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term". Removing the content of the page isn't the same as deleting it. If you are voting to delete because you deel that Battlefield 2 is more appropriate, please consider the possibility of redirecting if you haven't already. Redirects are cheap and creating one at this title wouldn't be harmful per WP:REDIRECT. This is a possible search term so it should be kept per User:Pboyd04.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

- Comment Point; a redirect is suitable as 'Battle Field 2' is a possible search term, as said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seriphyn (talk • contribs) .

Redirect to Battlefield 2 as a valid search term. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 17:00, 22 July 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.

anhducwiki7

Tuesday, January 4, 2022