Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (6th nomination): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
John Carter (talk | contribs) keep |
→Wikitruth: Care to share? |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Oh boy... I know this is going to be controversial, but I think it has to be done. The recent AFDs of [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] (closed as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)|keep]]) and [[Wikinfo]] (closed as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)|delete]]) made me reconsider this article, which is about another 'Wikipedia spin-off website'. It was once thought to pass our notability requirements, but I feel if judged today it would not. Specifically, it fails [[WP:WEB]], the requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Almost all of the references provided arguably only contain ''trivial'' coverage: brief mentions of the site in articles that are really about Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales (for example: [http://www.villagevoice.com/screens/0618,dibbell,73055,28.html], [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/apr/13/wikipedia.web20], [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/18/wales_sanger_interviews/print.html]). One of the articles is behind a pay wall [http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles%2Farchive%2Fc0607%2F46c07%2F46c07.asp], but it is not immediately obvious that it would provide evidence of notability either. As it is, it appears that despite passing several previous AFDs, this site has not received enough coverage to pass the notability test, and the article should be deleted. [[User:Terraxos|Terraxos]] ([[User talk:Terraxos|talk]]) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
Oh boy... I know this is going to be controversial, but I think it has to be done. The recent AFDs of [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] (closed as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)|keep]]) and [[Wikinfo]] (closed as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)|delete]]) made me reconsider this article, which is about another 'Wikipedia spin-off website'. It was once thought to pass our notability requirements, but I feel if judged today it would not. Specifically, it fails [[WP:WEB]], the requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Almost all of the references provided arguably only contain ''trivial'' coverage: brief mentions of the site in articles that are really about Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales (for example: [http://www.villagevoice.com/screens/0618,dibbell,73055,28.html], [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/apr/13/wikipedia.web20], [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/18/wales_sanger_interviews/print.html]). One of the articles is behind a pay wall [http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles%2Farchive%2Fc0607%2F46c07%2F46c07.asp], but it is not immediately obvious that it would provide evidence of notability either. As it is, it appears that despite passing several previous AFDs, this site has not received enough coverage to pass the notability test, and the article should be deleted. [[User:Terraxos|Terraxos]] ([[User talk:Terraxos|talk]]) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''', I had no trouble at all finding detailed news coverage of this. [[User:WillOakland|WillOakland]] ([[User talk:WillOakland|talk]]) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''', I had no trouble at all finding detailed news coverage of this. [[User:WillOakland|WillOakland]] ([[User talk:WillOakland|talk]]) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
**Care to share? [[Special:Contributions/137.111.143.140|137.111.143.140]] ([[User talk:137.111.143.140|talk]]) 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 01:18, 30 May 2008
Wikitruth
AfDs for this article:
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (7th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (8th nomination)
- Wikitruth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Oh boy... I know this is going to be controversial, but I think it has to be done. The recent AFDs of Encyclopedia Dramatica (closed as keep) and Wikinfo (closed as delete) made me reconsider this article, which is about another 'Wikipedia spin-off website'. It was once thought to pass our notability requirements, but I feel if judged today it would not. Specifically, it fails WP:WEB, the requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Almost all of the references provided arguably only contain trivial coverage: brief mentions of the site in articles that are really about Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales (for example: [1], [2], [3]). One of the articles is behind a pay wall [4], but it is not immediately obvious that it would provide evidence of notability either. As it is, it appears that despite passing several previous AFDs, this site has not received enough coverage to pass the notability test, and the article should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, I had no trouble at all finding detailed news coverage of this. WillOakland (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Care to share? 137.111.143.140 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above. John Carter (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)