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 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smashboards[edit]

I am a huge Super Smash Brothers Melee fan and an even bigger Smash 64 fan. I am also an inclusionist, however this is page poorly written (most of which is copied from the SSBM article). Also other fighting game forums which are equally big such as Shroyuken have been deleted. I personally feel these articles should be kept. However until the precedent is set they should either be deleted or rewritten. Plus Smashboards has been mentioned plenty in the SSBM article. Valoem ^talk 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, cmh 05:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unencyclopedic, insufficient assertion of notability. --Nlu (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above --Peephole 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Also, starting an article with "Smash World Forums, also known as Smashboards, is a world famous video-game forum," read more like an ad then anything else. Havok (T/C/c) 13:58, 16 August 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.