Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MeatballWiki

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MeatballWiki

FAILS Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Notability (web), Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Reliable sources BobDjurdjevic 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have heard of meatballwiki somewhere. That is beside the point. Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are not reasons for deletion - the greater percentage of articles here will fail that. Just because the sources aren't cited doesn't mean they don't exist. Judging by the edit history, It was Vanity when it started, but it may not be now - its notability and therefore inclusion will obviously be decided here. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms doesn't seem to apply considering we do actuually have an article on barnstars - though that doesn't include the internet form. Viridae^Talk 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has been on Wikipedia for over 4 years, and Meta often refers to Meatball. --Metropolitan90 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Thanks to Metropolitan90 I now know where I had heard of it. Keep per above. Viridae^Talk 03:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ...but it meets my "heard of this thing outside of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects a few times" got feeling criterion, which means that it's probably notable and can be improved. The criteria cited aren't deletion grounds (just grounds for severe cleanup), aside of web notability, which I think is more than marginally established. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is notable for being one of the oldest wikis in existence. The article is low on verifiability from reliable sources, but that can (and should) be improved. Relist in 4 weeks if there is no improvement in this regard and I will vote to delete. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Notable according to the people above, but article should list sources. If it really has existed for over 4 yours, it must be mentioned somewhere. --Peephole 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transfer to Wikipedia namespace While I personally love the MeatballWiki, it just doesn't have the sources (or at least I couldn't find any). I could see this being transferred to the Wikipedia namespace, however, as it is of considerable relevance to those of us working in the sausage factory (but not to the world at large). Ziggurat 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I googled and found one business weekly article. Still, someone more familiar with the subject should find and add more sources. --Peephole 03:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a good source, but really just a passing mention (one sentence?). If this were any website but another Wiki it would have been deleted without question as failing verifiability, and it's that bias that I'm concerned about. Although I'd love more, and more complete, sources to be found so I can withdraw my suggestion to transfer... Ziggurat 03:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. MeatballWiki was founded in 2000, so it's really six years old [1][2]. It is also contains a wealth of information about social software and online communities. Read it before you delete it.
• Keep. 93,000 hits on Google, and many references from the Meta pages on this very Wikipedia, seems notable to me.
• Keep Seems to pass notability criteria. Not convinced by the "You can go see it yourself" argument below; that would be original research.--Runcorn 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While it may have been self-serving to have created the article, given that Meatball were the ones who wrote, designed, and adapted the original wiki software that Wikipedia ran on, and then were involved in abitrating many social disputes within the Wikipedia community, it was a Wikipedian who wrote the original article, so I think Vanity is unfair.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by citing sources and claiming you have found only one trade magazine article. The site is public. You can go see it yourself. You can also see how the site is used by others on the Internet, and it has been notable at such events as Wikimania, WikiSym, WOZ3, ASIST'04, etc. Besides, I've been in the New York Times, too, so there. Blphssst. -- SunirShah

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.