Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokejungle.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 was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pokejungle.net
No evidence of passing any of the points of WP:WEB; despite being a reasonably well-constructed new article, there's a lot of unverifiable information here (no third-party sources to confirm). Deprodded with comments on article's talk page and listing for AfD per that discussion. ~Matticus TC 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please give me tonight to cite some sources, as I'm in Japan and rather busy. There are verifiable sources, and I'll be editing the page with them shortly. Thanks! BlackxxJapan 09:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Lawtoxxx 10:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB. Note that I have no prejudice against the site as such; but claims to notability like ~3000 visitors a day or references on international blogs and image boards are simply inadequate in the absence of awards or published references.  My own homepage gets more visitors than that and has also been referred to on a number of international blogs and forums, but if anyone created an article on it, I would nominate it for deletion myself.  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 11:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Haeleth mentioned non-cited sources, but sourcings to the foriegn sites and a stat tracking page for pokejungle.net have been provided to give published accounts to the claims. More coming soon, like I said, I'm pretty busy at the moment so please be patient.  This article is simply "Under Construction" and not finished yet. I think there might be a page header I'm supposed to put up, but I honestly don't know. BlackxxJapan 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Unfortunately, primary sources (as in the subject of the article) cannot be used to verify information (they're not neutral, and WP:NPOV is one of the central policies of Wikipedia.)  Blogs and forums cannot be used to verify information either, they're not reliable.  "Under construction" is not an excuse because we're supposed to place things on Wikipedia only after they're established, not before.  That being said, the site design looks clean and I hope you keep up the good work, but Wikipedia is not a web directory.  ColourBurst 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment My site is established...the article is still in the rough though.  And forums/blogs ARE reliable if you're claiming to have been sourced on international sites, such as forums or blogs.  Do you want a newspaper sourced when you're talking about blogs?  That is ridiculous.  "International blog" I source a blog, which thouroughly verifies the claim that it was sourced in an "international blog".  And the hits were definitely sourced by a third party script that's built soley to accurately track stats.  And I realize this isn't a website directory, but it is a user-based article compilation on all subjects and matters.  I think that if an article is well written, it documents what it needs to, AND I can finish sourcing everything, it should be fine.  The Wikipedia's gotten a bit too strict on 'what qualifies' as far as articles go.  If there's information to document, and (a) good writer(s), then what's the problem?  Is this article degrading to the Wikipedia?  BlackxxJapan 14:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Please read WP:RS. "Reliable" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia.  Blogs and web forums are not reliable under the criteria.  Wikipedia hasn't "gotten" too strict, the policy's been in since day 1 (since WP:RS derives from WP:V, which is a derivative of WP:NPOV, which is the very foundation of this site and non-negotiable.)  ColourBurst 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - as per original WP:WEB comment. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Very sorry, Wikipedia does not care if a site is "established" or not. Wikipedia cares if a site is notable... has the site been mentioned had multiple non-trivial mentions by any media sources? Has it won any major awards?  (i.e. a Webby), has any of its content been reproduced by any media sources? The article doesn't mention any of this currently, therefore it misses the guidelines setforth for web-related content and it's deletion should go forth because wikipedia is not a webdirectory.  Try []. --Kunzite 19:23, 9 September 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.