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)[reply]

The Alternative (Internet Community)[edit]

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}}.

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

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. --E lkman - ^(talk) 03:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-noteworthy gubbins. - The One and Only 05:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elkman. Harr o5 05:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Elkman. SorryGuy 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elkman. RexNL 10:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elkman. Andy Saund e rs 12:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Tony Bruguier 18:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete per Elkman. Nortelrye 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.