Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of wiki farms

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 no consensus. Petros471 13:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of wiki farms

This is a second nomination. It was previously nominated under List of wiki farms. This article in its self reads like an advertisement, it doesnt represent a npov and shouldnt feature reviews on the wiki providers them selves. I suggest turning this article into a soft redirect to Wiki:WikiFarms. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wiki farm already has a link to Wiki:WikiFarms. --Pjacobi 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Wiki:WikiFarms goes to a list many years old and out of date. I actually saw wikipedia's list from a mirror on a different site that was up to date. I forgot what the site was, but somewhere on wikia they had it. If this article goes, there needs to be a link to the up to date mirror. Anomo 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, none of the reasons in the nom is in WP:DEL. Well, I have this gut feeling saying the article must be deleted, but that's irrelevant. --logixoul 17:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep delete as we're not a business directory or review repository. It's inherently POV and otherwise problematic. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep, this article is clearly NPOV as it only tells the reader the features of each wiki farm.Taida 01:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: How is "fast setup" npov? It's a user rating and POV in the sense i may think there fast setup is slow. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Fast Setup" is a fact. It is not a user rating. The article just says that this wiki farm is faster then the rest.--Taida 22:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Who says its faster? Hence it is pov user rating. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: if this is kept add ample warning about obsolence and unreliability, like similar "comparisons" have Pavel Vozenilek 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, While not perfectly NPOV yet, it could be if someone was willing to spend the time. Um, not my time, but someone's time. I think it would be worth having around, though, better than just a listing of them. The soft redirect doesn't quite seem like it's what we'd want.150.243.64.10 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful in terms of information. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's not a reason for keeping. --logixoul 10:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I see the concerns, but it's a useful page. Could it be transwikied? To WikiIndex perhaps?--Singkong2005 ^talk 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It shouldn't. The page is encyclopedic content and so belongs to Wikipedia regardless of whether it's at WikiIndex. --logixoul 10:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. Its also a violation of WP:NOT.--Peta 09:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wiki is notable, therefore Wiki farm is notable, therefore Comparison of wiki farms is notable. BTW WP:N doesn't have a criteria for notability of list pages. --logixoul 10:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What makes the list notable? What makes warrants an inclusion in the list? What warrants having POV in the list? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • What makes the list notable? The fact that it lists items of a notable type, namely wiki farms.
      • What warrants an inclusion? Notability as defined in WP:N.
      • What warrants having POV in the list? Nothing, fix it if you can/want. --logixoul 11:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all websites listed there meet notability for inclusion, also the page you've quoted is a proposal. Why does wikipedia need a spam list? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all websites listed are notable, yes. Please remove the ones that aren't. The page I quoted is indeed a proposal, sorry. See Wikipedia:Notability (web) instead. Wikipedia doesn't need a spam list, and with united forces we can keep the spam out of the content. --logixoul 11:53, 14 September 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.