Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnimeB


 * 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. --Core desat  23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

AnimeB

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable barely active Internet forum with no secondary sources. --- RockMFR 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete as per nom. PeteShanosky 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy delete vanispamcrfutisement (or however you say it). &mdash; O cat ecir  Talk  00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Isnt note-worthy enough to have an article. It now looks like a blog about the site. Corpx 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not speediable, since it asserts notability, but fails to produce any sources to back up said assertion. Fails WP:WEB.  --Haemo 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Balloonman 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not lack of notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - NN. Spawn Man 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NEO and WP:WEB. Mkdw talk 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Per WP:CSD.Regards - Telly  addict  16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Unfortunately), it does not fall under A7 as it does assert its importance. --- RockMFR 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I disagree with deletion. It is a notable forum.  We're working on making this more acceptable to the Wikipedia community.  Please post suggestions to our talk page. And it is not "barely active" community, we got hundreds of active members. BobCatHKSS 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable enough. Would anybody outside the community ever have cause to find an encyclopedic article about it? Would having an article be worthy after you've fallen offline? Compare with an obscure language, which a Linguist might look up online. Autocracy 19:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB because it lacks necessary sources.-- danntm T C 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per danntm T C. -- Charlene 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it fails WP:WEB since it lacks certain sources.  Darth griz 98 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BARELY ACTIVE? C'mon, we got thousands of members!  With hundreds of ACTIVE members! All I see are judgments, not one iota of CONSTRUCTIVE crticism.  BobCatHKSS 03:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible you are misinterpreting the function of this discussion. Users come to a deletion discussion to make "judgments" on whether an article should be kept or not.  If they see a way the article can be improved or salvaged, most users will be bold and simply improve it themselves, not just make suggestions for improvement.  The way you can affect this discussion positively is not to make unsupported statements here on this discussion page that you have "thousands of members" and "hundreds of active members," but to add reliable secondary sources to the article that support the contentions in the article. —Carolfrog 08:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable spam article. WP:SNOW? --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If this discussion is only for judgments, then explain how do people fix it if people don't give constructive criticism? And yeah, we did back up the assertions of thousands of members and hundreds of active members: the forum comes with a site counter at the bottom of the main forum page. It is easy to judge, it is worthwhile to actually go to the talk page and give constructive criticism. The judgments basically don't contribute one iota to anything without the constructive criticism. Imagine getting a traffic ticket that says you violated a law, but the cop, the judge, the prosecutor, nobody will tell you how to avoid being convicted and losing your license. But all of them just say "yank the license!" BobCatHKSS 11:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the first paragraph of WP:N. Also, if something is notable, someone else other than people involved will write about it. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2007 (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.