Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anizone

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. Robdurbar 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anizone

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Web forum. Vanity article by members of the forum - see Wikipedia / Anizone, they mix! I don't think they mix. -- RHaworth 19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank: 306,685. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1000 members wouldn't be considered "very popular", and there are no third party reliable sources. conflict of interest issues abound. ColourBurst 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - for blatant advertising. I waited a bit to see how this one would play out before making a decision, but as much good faith as I normally assume, there is no sticking up for this one. The article's prime editor (and incidentally, the forum admin) removed the AfD tag from the page and does not take kindly to other editors touching 'his' page. The whole layout of the article is clearly trying to draw viewers into the forums, perhaps to meet the admitted goal of 500,000 posts. Add these to the issues others have pointed out and there's really no need for further discussion. -bobby 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I reverted to a previous version to reinstate the AfD tag. -bobby 21:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay because just like the gamefaqs article and the ebay one it helps people understand a site more. The Anizone is a large site and I think if someone wants to find out more about it they come to the best internet dictionary in the world and they research on of the largest best sites. The site has a largely amount of fair people considering it has been hacked three times. The admin accidently remoe it thinking it would be delete and he was not the maker of the page but it was I. Also we dont want people to help us reach 500,000 post we can do that on our own we just want people to know about usHyuugaGaara 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'll have to give a reason that conforms to Wikipedia policy. ColourBurst 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, but it's not like the Gamefaqs.com and the eBay articles. An important part of those articles are cites from reliable sources, which this article has none of. How do we know anything in the article is accurate? Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it's an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source, which means there's no original research. ColourBurst 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like advertising, and as the comment above says, it seems to be a ploy to draw new users to the forums - seems to be no reason for keeping in my opinion. SunStar Net 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am even a member there and I don't support this article. It is a waste of space. Delete it.

--GreyFoxHack 23:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then can someone explain how not to get it delete like what source are you guys talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyuugaGaara (talk • contribs)

He means a source that isn't from the admin of the site. You know, someone who isn't prejudiced.--GreyFoxHack 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research. No reliable sources. Wickethewok 14:16, 31 October 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.