Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Alternative (Internet Community)

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 02:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Alternative (Internet Community)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Vanity article, request for review removed DonaldMick 02:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia isn't the place for everyone to advertise their Internet forum. I'm sure The Alternative (Internet Community) would be quite unhappy if I went to their forum and posted irrelevant stuff about civil engineering projects in Minnesota. --Elkman - ^(talk) 03:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-noteworthy gubbins. - The One and Only 05:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Elkman. Harro5 05:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Elkman. SorryGuy 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Elkman. RexNL 10:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Elkman. Andy Saunders 12:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Tony Bruguier 18:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Vanity article my ass. This is a very well known place. I don't think GGFan would give a damn if you posted about civil engineering on there. This is a well known Pokemon community and needs to stay.

• Delete as per nom, and WP:WWIN, Soapboxing in particular. The article is also very poorly written. Justinhayabusa 20:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Elkman. Nortelrye 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is poorly written if English isn't your first language.

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.