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. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is, admittedly, a popular site. Someone may even link the previous AFD, filled with handwaving about popularity. There isn't a single word in this article, however, that is verifiable, though. Nothing has ever been written about this site in a reputable source, meaning that there's no material to use in writing this article. The current article shows this fact clearly; the intro is written based on direct observation of the site, then degenerates into unsourced waffle about the forums, more unsourced and unsourcable waffle about the history, and then half the article is about the site being hacked. Google News gives me nawt, and searches of the major game sites give me nothing but forum hits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ArrEmmDee in the previous AfD. -- Steel 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very popular site and notable within the Pokemon fan community, but the current article is crap, with loads of prose about a two-day "hack" that isn't of any interest to those not already invoved with the site. It might be possible to clean it up, but even then it's all about finding reliable sources, and there doesn't seem to be any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If a section about 2 days worth of hacking can be more than twice as long as the rest of the article, there's a problem. It doesn't help that the only things cited are the site's own forums. It's nice that it's popular, but we don't have any sources from which to create an article. -Amarkov ^babble 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; I'm almost ashamed of myself. The Hybrid Lives 05:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 08:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to admit that I was a bit biased during the first nomination, but now I check the article and pretty much the only thing of interest was the hacking. Blue MirageSMOOORG!!! 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ccbyi 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Talks Waaay too much about the forums. Barely any info about the site itself. It's just forums this. Forums that. DigitalKaede 18:07 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a web directory. Plenty of users, but a forum site with self-contained cultural impact that got hacked once does not require any kind of detailed explanation. - Wickning1 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A fansite is a fansite. When's the last time there was an article about a game fansite that wasn't eventually deleted? It's enough to link to the fansite as an external link in some of the relevant Pokemon articles (though I might even be wrong about that). Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 17:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Serebii is slowly picking up notability within the fan community for authoritative news. The guy running it actually imported the latest games in the series (from Japan!). Clean it up immediately, however, in its current state. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There's not much there to clean up. Apart from the forums and the hacking, what else is there that's encyclopedic and sourced to say about it?--`/aksha 04:15, 14 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.