Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PKMN.NET

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. Oh, and remember WP:COOL. :) - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PKMN.NET

Purely advertising. Not notable, just another Pokémon website. Definitely needs to be deleted XenoN e on (converse) 20:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a member yourself, XenoNeon, so you of all people would know that PKMN is worthy of being known.User: Dark As Dusk 20:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, as the nominator.--XenoN e on (converse) 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes no claim of notability, and the site itself looks far from notable. Moreover, it's origins seem to be obscure, having been created in the shadowy mists of the early 21st century... --Deville (Talk) 20:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure, unadulterated, vanity. Mr. Lefty 20:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. delete it if you must. Bastards.User: Dark As Dusk 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, I'd say it was a particularly important part of this particular element of net culture. But the article could do with expansion and more information in it. Barnabat 21:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Barnabat. But I made it under an hour ago. User: Dark As Dusk 21:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should be kept, as PKMN.net is a complete guide to all pokémon games, animé, etc, and individual in the way it is written. Adding to that it stands out from other sites with features like the Name Rater and Sentret. It's not doing any harm on this site, and the odds are stacked towards it staying as a Wikipedia page. EM 21:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why you lot are questioning its value upon Wikipedia. PKMN.NET is a valued community with a wealth of information and as such, the article deserves a place on Wikipedia.

Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 966,668 seems awfully high. Fan1967 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Why does it matter how much information is on the site? It's still not notable. Tokakeke 22:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say something to all PUKers. I suggest you read the policies and guidelines before jumping to make an account regarding it and arguing for it. I know you love it so much, but it is not notable.--XenoN e on (converse) 06:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be deleted, but it needs to be expanded greatly. Not mention its POV. User:Myth_Maniac

Keep I'm unsure as to why a page about a website needs to be deleated. It contains no information against the rules of Wikipedia. The article is too impartial for it to be any sort of forumcruft. Wikipedia has many different articles about sites designed to share information and this is just another one. If the page becomes vain, then it can just be changed back, right? Phıl 16:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, IT'S NOT DOING ANY HARM JUST LET IT BE THERE.

This is crufty advertising about a non-notable website. If everything that "didn't do harm" was kept, Wikipedia as a reliable

encyclopedia would cease to exist. Tokakeke 21:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOR HEAVENS SAKE, JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T DOING HARM DOESN'T MEAN IT'S VALUABLE INFORMATION TO GO ON WIKIPEDIA AND AGREES WITH OUR POLICIES. TRY READING THE WP:WEB. DOES IT AGREE TO THAT? NO.--XenoN e on (converse) 18:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you're in Esperanza? Tokakeke 01:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just getting really annoyed. I'm not normally like this.--XenoN e on (converse) 17:47, 27 April 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.