This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh where to start! Unencyclopedic, overly POV, site link says it is gone, plus other links within article appear more like attempts at advertising. …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 17:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Where to start - you can detail exactly what makes this article so unencyclopedic, where you see POV, how links within the article are "advertising" (I only see two direct links, which are topical and used for comparative purposes; other non-hyper-links are within a verbatim quotation which is also topical) and any other arguments you may have please. Also the link to The Phora's website is working; the site was down for a few days but is online now.--Yipperson 07:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Keep This article is useful, but it needs to be improved and cleaned up good. --Gramaic 6 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

• Delete The Phora home page is still down, and just as Willmcw said, it's barely notable. Anyway, I like to thank Will for the support he gave me.--Gramaic | Talk 8 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
• Keep and edit heavily. What Guy M and Yipperson say about this article is true: it's horrible. Under ordinary circumstances I'd vote to delete. However I believe that Gramaic is capable (with our help) of bringing this article up to WP standards. My bigger concern is that it is small and barely notable, but again I trust Gramaic's judgement on account of his work on articles like "White supremacy". -Willmcw July 6, 2005 06:12 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's waste our time on better topics than marginal white nationalist web forums. If it someday becomes truly notable we can write a new article with less work than it would take to edit the current article into a presentable form. -Willmcw July 8, 2005 07:51 (UTC)

Can we have some discussion as to what exactly would need to be changed to bring the article into "presentable form"? The content is not very heavy, I doubt it would take much effort.

--Yipperson 22:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The Phora is pretty well-known among racialist websites... At least a lot of people seem to have hated it! --Edward Wakelin 04:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Phrases like "I created it ..." let me know there's a vanity piece here. Phrases like "This was the last incarnation of The Phora that was hacked by those Arab fucks last June" are unencyclopediac. Lcuff 22:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

^Those are clearly quotations --Yipperson 18:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - despite the debate this was not previosly listed on afd/vfd - now fixed (no vote)--Doc (?) 21:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete first person verbiage per nom. -Splash 23:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable forum, unless (secondary) sources can be provided to demonstrate its notability. A stunning alex rank of three million [1]. Sdedeo 23:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Splash. Nandesuka 00:06, 6 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.