Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S23 Wiki (second nomination)

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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S23 Wiki

Notability of this wiki is not asserted in the article. There are only 182 registered users, and 5930 total pages. The article was nominated for deletion in December, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S23 Wiki. The result of that discussion was "no consensus", because of 3 late "keep" votes from the Wiki's members. dbenbenn | talk 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable as per nom. Also seems to fail WP:WEB; Google "s23 wiki" for dearth of results that are not self-referential. --Kinu 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 01:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable wiki. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: After seeing the end-loading of the votes by apparent members of this group on the previous AfD nomination, there seems to be a fervent desire on their part to see this article stay. If deletion occurs, perhaps it should come with {{deletedpage}} status. --Kinu 04:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Possibly give a short mention on Seti@home. JoshuaZ 05:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
• Keep per stopping trollish deletion. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it is a much more active site than infoAnarchy. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep please. As you will see from our Current events page that we really care about this wiki and really love being metioned on Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding. -Kunda23 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Love being metioned? Sounds like the purpose of the page is vanity... which is a criterion for deletion. --Kinu 02:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • They didn't create the article, I did. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If you have to delete anyways, do it, but in general, why is deleting so important? Does that little diskspace matter? Staying would give us a chance to have more users, but we cant stay if we dont have enough of them.. hmm oh well, cant help it then Mutante23 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have often wondered why people consider deleting articles such as this to be such an important job. Deleting it won't reduce the bytes on Wikipedia; it would still take up space under Special:Undelete/S23 Wiki. Furthermore, this article makes Wikipedia a better source for information. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Bad ideas 06:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Pages aren't deleted to save space. They're deleted because not everything is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT. In particular, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia--it is true that there is no limit on the amount of information wikipedia can contain. However, wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information--the information on wikipedia must be encyclopedic and notable. See WP:WEB for notability criteria of a website. Bad ideas 06:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 09:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom, non-notable website, as defined in WP:WEB. Agnte 13:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• MattisManzel 14:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC): keep
• Keep I think it's notable, so keep it. Took77 15:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The previous user was recently created has no significant contibutions beyond this vote. Not actually calling sock puppetry on this user in particular, but adding the warning preemptively, since there is precedent from the previous AfD as well. --Kinu 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm a real human being. My german wikipedia-account doesn't seems to work with this english wiki, thats why I had to create a new one. Took77 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not understand why people are saying this is not notable. It seems to be a notable website. If it cannot be kept, then I say redirect to Seti@home because it makes no sense to needlessly delete it. — Galaeron Nihmedu 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JarlaxleArtemis Lyo 04:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kinu. --MayerG 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JarlaxleArtemis. --User:Yaotl
• Delete per nom. Lots of keep votes from newly created accounts. --Pierremenard 08:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Acctualy we are only passiv readers of the english wiki. Since my english isn't that great I prefer editing the german wikipedia... That's, again, why I had to create an Account here just to take part on this discussion on the article... Anyway. I guess if pages like Zeldapedia (or lots of other examples) may exists, there is a eligibility to keep S23 Wiki. It's no reason to delete a page just because it has been started by someone like Jarlaxle, who may have started some zany pages, I think. But we can see it as an positive side-effect, that, as I have heard, some guys from the s23-comunity are workin on an improvment of S23 Wiki :) Took77 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Some zany pages? Thanks. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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.