Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bite Pokémon

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bite Pokémon

I'm normally all for supporting the expansion of pokémon pages, what with all the information available out there. However, I can't support a page based around a new pokémon category the author just made up. Almafeta 22:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There is a limit on these things, and that's about mile past it. Kel-nage 22:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the Poke-fan-cruft. --Scimitar 22:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And what the hell are Sagger and Criptia? I've been a Pokemon fan for years and I've never heard of either of those. Ketsuban (is better than you) 00:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Gotta delete them all, Pokécruft. [/parody] Nestea 01:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I choose you, Delete-a-chu! -- BD2412 ^talk 02:43, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
• Delete Poke-cruft should not be a reason for deletion. Being a ridiculous article with no truth what-so-ever is. Sonic Mew 11:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.