Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:02, 16 May 2008

Wikinfo

A cursory search on the subject suggests a lack of notability; no sources in mainstream news and only trivial coverage in the blogosphere. Most of the inline references don't mention the subject or *are* the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is indeed an important subject in the history of Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is not required to explain its own subculture, as much as the amazingly comprehensive Criticism of Wikipedia article might make you think otherwise. There is a wiki called MeatBall which covers the "meta" subjects for c2.com's WikiWiki. Similarly, this article might be useful to some wiki (Meta?) which exists to preserve Wikipedia's history and famous debates and so forth. However, as a subject in its own right Wikinfo fails WP:WEB. It is cited in scholarly articles only as an offshoot of Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cited sources do not seem to denote this subject as adequately notable. Would be happy to reconsider if additional references were added. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Good article on an interesting subject, I am baffled as to why it would be afd'd. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT?! Shii (tock) 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC

No, I like it would be a complete misreading of my comment, I am talking about its educational value and worth tot he encyclopedia, my personal view is that its a subject that does not particularly interest me but my own view is, as you say, not relevant. Thanks, SqueakBox01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't meet notability guidelines. Very little to no coverage in reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read the other AFDs a few minutes ago, and have looked through the previous AFDs, and say delete. We have three sources. One book: so far so good. Erik Moller's article: so far so good. The Journal of American History: this is good. Three sources, for one site, but no other notability? The essay at http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html only mentions it trivially, so doesn't count, and Joseph Reagle he doesn't appear to be particularly notable[1]. That said, I say delete. It's status as a fork of Wikipedia has no notability value in and of itself, and we have a grand total of three sources. That doesn't strike me as notable enough. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the cited (neutral external) mention wikinfo other than in passing as a fork with a different philosphy - not notable. Viridae ^Talk 01:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per the 6 previous AfD's. This is an abusive nomination, suspiciously made less than 2 hours after this article was mentioned at the contentious Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD. Z00r (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that in any way abusive? Viridae^Talk 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, first of all it is abusive to nominate an article again and again and again and again and again and again until finally the right set of people happen to show up and the vote works out in your favor. Secondly, it is abusive to create a nomination for one article for the purpose of affecting the outcome of another article AfD. Z00r (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Want to back up that bad faith assertion with a bit of evidence? Viridae^Talk 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um... the ED article is up at AFD five times, some article have gone 10+ times... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ***Well, first of all it is abusive to nominate an article again and again and again and again and again and again until finally the right set of people happen to show up and the vote works out in your favor. Secondly, it is abusive to create a nomination for one article for the purpose of affecting the outcome of another article AfD. [[User:Z00r|Z00r]] ([[User talk:Z00r|talk]]) 01:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 ****Want to back up that bad faith assertion with a bit of evidence? [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
+*****Um... the ED article is up at AFD five times, some article have gone 10+ times... <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">[[User:Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] § [[User talk:Lawrence Cohen|t]]/[[:Special:Contributions/Lawrence_Cohen|e]]</font></span> 02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)