Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:51, 31 May 2007

Wikinfo

Note the nominator forgot to transclude, so I transcluded it here. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable site with no known reliable outside sources. Delete for similar reason to why we deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica and the other wikis that are "unsourced" (although I am an ED sysop and do know sources for that site). ote I have a bit of an anti-Wikinfo bias, because I have been vicously trolled and harassed by Fred Bauder, the admin of the site. Riboflavinl0l 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Riboflavinl0l 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've visited Wikinfo, but most of their articles are crude outdated Wikipedia articles. Just go there and read their article on George W. Bush. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ITANNOYSME. This sounds like an "I don't like it" argument, that their articles are low-quality is not a deletion reason. Fimbulwintr 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable as functioning fork of Wikipedia, sources for assertions in article have been provided, we've been over this before. Nominator's honesty about his dispute with Fred Bauder is good, but doesn't justify deletion of article. Casey Abell 03:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone explain what new information has arisen since the last three nominations to merit a further discussion? Yechiel Man 03:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Casey Abell. I'm coming in completely new to this so have no bias I hope. I see sources. 209.121.47.38 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - looks like it has sufficient reliable sources for some kind of notability. I'm not pleased with them, though. --Haemo 04:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As per others, and simply because I found the article useful. My bias. : ) --R e m i 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 *Keep. per Casey Abell. I'm coming in completely new to this so have no bias I hope. I see sources. [[User:209.121.47.38|209.121.47.38]] 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Weak Keep''' - looks like it has sufficient reliable sources for some kind of notability.  I'm not pleased with them, though.  --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 04:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-'''Week keep''' - As per others, and simply because I found the information useful. My bias. : ) --[[User:Remi0o|R]][[Special:Emailuser/Remi0o|e]][[User_talk:Remi0o|m]][[Special:Contributions/Remi0o|i]] 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Weak keep''' - As per others, and simply because I found the article useful. My bias. : ) --[[User:Remi0o|R]][[Special:Emailuser/Remi0o|e]][[User_talk:Remi0o|m]][[Special:Contributions/Remi0o|i]] 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)