Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis (old)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 04:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yellowikis

It's a wiki that works like the yellow pages. I noticed it because a new user was adding links to it in various places, but this site doesn't seem particularly notable. 30k googles, in existence since last january, and most importantly it only has 42 users and about 200 article pages. Radiant_>|< 09:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain - Not sure where my vote stands as of this time! UniReb 12:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or Transwiki to Wikimedia or something. This isn't notable yet, but could be, and could become a great tool for reducing vfd requests. (Any phonebook-esque type things could be eventually transwikied there.)I wonder sometimes if Wikipedia would have deleted itself when it first started out. Karmafist 14:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I should hope so! There's no way a tiny web encyclopedia, as WP was in early 2001, would be worthy of an article. In all seriousness, Meelar (talk) 20:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm the founder of Yellowikis. The reason we added this page to Wikipedia is that each month we have a focus on a developing country (this month it is Rwanda). To encourage people to add information to Yellowikis we put a temporary notice on the country page on Wikipedia. Depending on who writes the link it sometimes references this page. We certainly aren't notable in encyclopedic terms (yet) and we don't really mind if this page is deleted or not - but I'd like to encourage you all to transfer advertising and other non-encyclopedic pages about companies and organisations to Yellowikis before you delete them from Wikipedia. Best wishes.--Payo 20:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Spam for the reasons that that's a bad thing to do. Uncle G 07:12:01, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
• Keep - It looks like it might have some potential and/or notability to it on Wiki. UniReb 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

More debate needed here. -Splash 20:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep in some fashion as per Karmafist Dlyons493 23:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, userfying or whatever would be fine. Kappa 00:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lacking notability. Not a list of links. Friday (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep has been in the news a bit. NSR (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Has it? I might need to change my vote... Can you show me something? Kappa 01:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • There were some press and radio reports in Germany at Wikimania 2005.--Payo 01:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Encyclopedias and dictionaries have a long history of bias towards themselves. The Wikipedia article on itself has 5,393 words; while the entry on Encyclopedia Britannica only 1,337. The Oxford Shorter English Dictionary (1972) has 11 definitions of words relating to Oxford but none relating to Cambridge. I think that users of Wikipedia would expect to find slightly obscure articles on other projects using the wiki way.--Payo 01:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a directory of web sites that use wikis, nor is it an promotional vehicle for publicizing things that people don't (yet) know. Wikipedia is here to collate and summarize existing knowledge. Being the subject of independent news reports or conference presentations are two of the ways that people acquire such knowledge. If that is the case for your web site, then as Kappa says please cite those reports and presentations (for preference using the handy templates provided for doing so). Uncle G 17:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I heard about it during the Wikimania reports. It may be small at the moment but it is notable enough by my standards. Swirlix 15:10, 16 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.