Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SourceryForge 2

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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SourceryForge

I brought this up at WP:DRV. It was previously closed as a "no consensus", but it seems to fall far short of WP:WEB guidelines. No sources, alexa rank over 1 million, nothing to indicate significance. The original closer said he has no objection to calling this a "delete" or relisting. I figured I'd relist it just to make sure everything's fair and visible. Most people said "delete" in the last Afd. The reasons given for keeping were "pending further disscussion" and "fun name". A few months have gone by, so there's been time to discuss or improve the article, but it hasn't changed. Unless there's something extraordinary about this website to make us disregard WP:V and WP:WEB, I'd say it has to go. Friday (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Good article on this unique wiki. It may not be "extraodinary", but as far as I'm concerned that is not a requirement for wikipedia. As per my previous vote, I say it should stay. -- JJay 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• We don't need to document the internet as it happens. The net itself does this, and Wikipedia is not google. Is there something particular about this website that makes you feel it should have an encyclopedia article, or is it just that it exists? Friday (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It sometimes provides information on topics of interest in one place. Google is a search engine. It sometimes helps people find web pages that exist on the internet. Many topics covered here are covered elsewhere on the internet in much greater depth. Nevertheless, in my opinion, that is not a reason or even a valid argument for deciding what articles are included here. Things are happening all the time. That may be reflected by google, yahoo, jeeves, it certainly does not preclude encyclopedic coverage of a unique wiki by a collaborative community of editors. -- JJay 17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• We only want extrodinary websites on wikipedia as stated in WP:WEB, it is a requirement. Mike _{(T C)} 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• It is a guideline. -- JJay 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Very low Alexa ranking, and not very likely to be improved. While theoretically we could write something about everything, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and at some point we have to draw the line. That line eventually evolved into the WP:WEB guideline, and this article does not meet it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 17:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly which part of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does this violate? -- JJay 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That we do not need to have a page about every single website out there, and where to stop has been determined through discussion and consensus in the establishment of each notability guideline. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • None of which is listed on the policy page you cited. -- JJay 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mike _{(T C)} 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The page is not notable just because it's a wiki.  RasputinAXP  c 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if there's anything that makes this notable, it isn't mentioned. Tuf-Kat 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB and low Alexa ranking. Metta Bubble 02:36, 4 March 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.