- 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 00:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is an article that violates WP:NPOV, as well as not being notable enough to actually sustain any status as an article. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The mentioned page was created to attack the forum the page was about. The page was made by a member who was already banned from said forum, obviously out of spite. Now other users who also hate the forum for unexplained reasons are also using it as a way to talk negatively about the forum. It is unacceptable, and does clash with the rule mentioned earlier.---Axel- 00:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm all for keeping Pokemon articles, but this is a forum with an Alexa rank somewhere around 200,000+. Also article tone seems overly critical, like an attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He is just flameing the members. NN. Heltec talk
- Delete - even if the website is notable, this article isn't. - Richardcavell 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Obviously a one sided article made out of spite. Kazuhara 01:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talkto Nihonjoe 01:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a member there, I can say this article is fairly accurate. To the outside observer, it may seem one-sided, flaming, or spiteful, but there's no way to soften the truth. I'd suggest just adding some nicer facts. ~ Paul (170.215.4.191) 20:22, 12 May 2006 (CST)
- Delete I suggest that those voters without registered accounts at PC just visit the forum in question [[1]], register, and see how it is for themselves before reserving any more judgement, however. Maybe the information's all true. Who knows, really? - Kira Matthews 18:56, 11 May 2006 (PDT)
- Delete Thoroughly useless; the extreme bias, malicious attitude, and complete lack of information regarding the forums, regardless of whether the PokéCommunity is notable or not, is grounds enough for deletion.--Rienfleche 22:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete useless --Deville (Talk) 02:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton (T—C—U—L) 03:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 04:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As much as what the article says is completely true or untrue, it IS trolling indirectly, I believe. It deserves deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.88.12.134 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete as an attack page. JIP | Talk 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on article's current condition. While the article no longer has NPOV issues, it's notability is still questionable as grounds to a deletion. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 09:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV, original research. Notability is asserted but without objective proof. Just zis Guy you know? 11:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn POV spam. Triple whammy. --Zpb52 17:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete most of the time, the author is simply poking at those he/she/it doesn't like. The criticims are almost as long as the real content. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Metromoxie 01:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait as the admin of the forum in question, we'd like to discuss this with our staff and see if, perhaps, we can come up with an unbiased, proper article. I would suggest to hold off with any action untill then. 67.172.185.48 03:04:41 13 May 2006 (GMT)
- Delete Non-notable. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 08:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change the name of the header to "Pokecommunity Conflicts." Everyone that has been stated there is fact, so it can't even be considered flames or an attack page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HexaDakota (talk • contribs) .
- Delete: This article was created by members that have for this reason been banned, alongside those that have been banned in the past for violating the terms of membership there, to slight the administration at the site. I have spoken with the administration of the said forum, who have previously tried to negotiate a less biased article, and they have agreed that the existence of such an article flouts the regulations at Wikipedia that require the article to be verifiable by the third party and prohibit advertising, and thus should be removed. Crystal Walrein 01:09, 16 May 2006 (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.