Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikinfo
This is the third nomination for this article. I've read the other two, and I've yet to see a compelling reason for keeping (the first was overshadowed by a bad-faith nom). I think keeping this article is a result of systemic bias; we think it's notable because we have heard of it because we are Wikipedians. I'll outline the reasons for deletion below.
Firstly, it does not pass as notable according to WP:WEB. These are well-established guidelines for determining the notability of web-based concepts, and are used extensively for most web topics. The second and third criteria are certainly not passed: it has not won an award, nor been distributed via well-known independent medium. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself (the mention in Telepolis is undeniably trivial. Thus, it clearly fails the notability guidelines.
Secondly (and if you don't like notability), there is practically nothing verifiable that can be included in this article. Everything is being sourced directly to the Wikinfo domain. The article is essentially a description of Wikinfo is and how it works, with no context of why it's important in the larger world; due to the lack of independent sourcing, this can't change. If there is nothing verifiable from which to construct the article, why is it in the encyclopaedia.
Thirdly, to rebut an argument given in the previous AfDs for keeping; being a fork of a notable project does not automatically confer notability. That just wouldn't work. If you feel it is a prominent fork, then it would merit inclusion in an article on Wikipedia, or even Wikipedia forks, but not on its own (for the reasons mentioned above).
Previous AfDs cited numerous other reasons for keeping the article, but none of them conformed to any guideline or policy. The existence of similar articles (Nupedia, Citizendium et al) is not a reason to keep this one. The significance of Fred Bauder within the Wikipedia community is not a reason to keep an article in a general encyclopaedia.
I'm aware this nomination is fairly lengthy, but that's an attempt to combat any dismissive "keep per previous AfD" replies. Consider the arguments raised and, if you still feel this should be kept, please explain why; don't simply assert that this is notable. And I would ask you to judge this objectively; if a website of similar prominence and sourcing, but unrelated to the Wikipedia community, was nominated, how would you vote? Trebor 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There's nothing new in this nomination, so I'll just link to my (long-winded) comments at the previous AfD. Casey Abell 17:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't follow your comments last time; how on earth can something "borrow" notability from Wikipedia? You are using notability in the sense of "significance" or "importance" which it isn't. It is a reasonably objective assessment of a topic, in respect of the guidelines agreed on by community consensus. If I forked Wikipedia, would my fork be notable? You said last time that you would support a move to Wikipedia namespace; is that not a tacit admission of this site's lack of notability? Trebor 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you couldn't follow my comments from the previous AfD, I'm sorry but I'm afraid we'll have to leave the discussion as is. There's nothing more I can add, and we're certainly not going to convince each other. Casey Abell 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well last time you seemed to conclude that it shouldn't be in the main namespace, and supported moving it elsewhere, so I'm not sure why you're !voting Keep now. I'll post a (neutrally worded) comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability to get some more opinions on this "borrowing" notability argument. Trebor 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you couldn't follow my comments from the previous AfD, I'm sorry but I'm afraid we'll have to leave the discussion as is. There's nothing more I can add, and we're certainly not going to convince each other. Casey Abell 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't follow your comments last time; how on earth can something "borrow" notability from Wikipedia? You are using notability in the sense of "significance" or "importance" which it isn't. It is a reasonably objective assessment of a topic, in respect of the guidelines agreed on by community consensus. If I forked Wikipedia, would my fork be notable? You said last time that you would support a move to Wikipedia namespace; is that not a tacit admission of this site's lack of notability? Trebor 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is no new information since the previous Afd, and I am not comfortable with repeated attempts, as they either are hopes that by some chance there might be a different group of editors present who might feel differently. Tis is a game that can be kept up indefinitely, and most formal or informal judicial systems disallow it. This disrupts the afd process by forcing continued reargument. There is nothing new in the facts or the argument. Keeping it is just common sense. DGG 18:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, but I think the previous AfD wasn't a fair reflection. Too many people came and !voted, and then left, not responding to arguments against their POV. Please explain why we can abandon policy and guidelines to allow an unverifiable and non-notable article to exist. Trebor 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- We can source two facts to sources other than Wikinfo itself. See the citations in the article. Uncle G 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we can create an article saying it is a fork of Wikipedia with a sympathetic point of view. Nothing else seems verifiable. Trebor 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not from independent sources, no. Those two citations are all that I've been able to discover so far. (Admittedly, this particular subject is hard to research. Looking on the World Wide Web, for example, one has to wade through a large number of copies on other web sites of this article and of User:Fred Bauder, and cannot easily exclude them from a search without excluding potential sources as well.) Uncle G 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I admire your dedication to look through sources; obviously (as with all notability deletions), we can never definitively say that there are no sources anywhere. However, given the relative size and prominence of the project, it seems unlikely there will be much else (and, as ever, the burden is on those wishing to keep). Trebor 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no it isn't. AFD involves multiple editors precisely so that editors can find things that other editors either have overlooked or do not know about. For it to work, everyone in an AFD discussion must do their own independent research, so that there are as many layers of swiss cheese, to prevent an erroneous conclusion, in the process as possible (see the Swiss Cheese model). That includes the nominator and those that want the article deleted. "Fails WP:WEB, and I did the research looking here, here, and here but could only find X, Y, and Z." is far more convincing than "The article doesn't cite enough sources to show that WP:WEB is satisfied.". If the sources exist, and it is simply the case that the nominator didn't make any attempt to look for them, then fixing the article is a matter of cleanup, not deletion.
Hence: User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Uncle G 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm aware that people should do their own research. But if, after this, no sources have been found, I don't think an argument for "Keep", asserting that there are sources, is very convincing. In this case, it's not really relevant, as the arguments for keeping are in spite of the lack of sources. Trebor 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no it isn't. AFD involves multiple editors precisely so that editors can find things that other editors either have overlooked or do not know about. For it to work, everyone in an AFD discussion must do their own independent research, so that there are as many layers of swiss cheese, to prevent an erroneous conclusion, in the process as possible (see the Swiss Cheese model). That includes the nominator and those that want the article deleted. "Fails WP:WEB, and I did the research looking here, here, and here but could only find X, Y, and Z." is far more convincing than "The article doesn't cite enough sources to show that WP:WEB is satisfied.". If the sources exist, and it is simply the case that the nominator didn't make any attempt to look for them, then fixing the article is a matter of cleanup, not deletion.
- I admire your dedication to look through sources; obviously (as with all notability deletions), we can never definitively say that there are no sources anywhere. However, given the relative size and prominence of the project, it seems unlikely there will be much else (and, as ever, the burden is on those wishing to keep). Trebor 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not from independent sources, no. Those two citations are all that I've been able to discover so far. (Admittedly, this particular subject is hard to research. Looking on the World Wide Web, for example, one has to wade through a large number of copies on other web sites of this article and of User:Fred Bauder, and cannot easily exclude them from a search without excluding potential sources as well.) Uncle G 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we can create an article saying it is a fork of Wikipedia with a sympathetic point of view. Nothing else seems verifiable. Trebor 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep: I've had a look over there, and find the sympathetic point of view can be illuminating. It's not that long ago that Wikipedia was the size of Wikinfo, and it had a Wikipedia article then. Stephen B Streater 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)-
- Changed to delete or merge: Great as Wikinfo is as a concept, Wikipedia is moving towards quality rather than quantity for articles. Wikinfo people have unfortunately not come up with any sources of significant articles, and we are nearing the AfD deadline for the third AfD. If these are found or written, we can re-introduce the article. Stephen B Streater 11:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- What relevance does that have? Whether or not you like the concept or not isn't pertinent to this AfD. The fact we may have had an article on ourself too early, in no way excuses keeping this one (see WP:ILIKEIT for fuller explanation). I don't see how your arguments excuse the fact it is unverifiable and non-notable. Trebor 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is an expression: cutting off your nose to spite your face. Wikipedia is moving away from using common knowledge, where people write about what they know, to a more rigorous system of using "reliable" sources. But doing this exclusively this has dangers. Anyone who has been written about knows that even so-called reliable sources are full of simplifications and often made up "facts". My view is that reliable sources should be used to establish contended facts, but not be required for common knowledge which is uncontended. This is actually much more relevant on technical subjects, where elementary knowledge is often not mentioned in the most sophisticated sources. But as no one challenges it, we can work on more difficult areas, which benefit from references. Stephen B Streater 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I still fail to see the relevance to this deletion discussion. Could you link it more obviously please. Trebor 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think applying the latest ideology on Wikipedian purity to all articles makes this encyclopaedia better. Many articles, for example the much edited Go, contain a multitiude of unreferenced facts. The question here in AfD is not about what should be in the article, but about whether there should be one. I think that Wikinfo is notable because it is the manifestation of an interesting philosophy, just as I think Wikipedia was notable even before it was widely written about. Wikipedia is not just notable because it is written about. This is a sufficient but not necessary condition. By trying to control editors decisions by imprisoning them in one-size-fits-all rules, there is a risk of driving away intelligent, thoughtful and inspired editors - the mappers - leaving just the packers (you won't find these terms here because they are banned neologisms, but you can find them elsewhere in the context of software development - perhaps I'll add them to Wikinfo). Stephen B Streater 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's hardly the "latest" ideology; it's been around for a while and has an accepted consensus. Things aren't notable because they're "interesting". Your comments don't seem very related to this particular nomination, they're more general comments on the system as a whole. I don't think your reasoning has any grounding in the policies and guidelines we currently use. Trebor 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence would suggest otherwise. After all, this article has survived two previous nominations at AfD, which would seem to contradict the assertion that the long-held consensus policies and guidelines would ensure deletion. It is true that the gist of the points above is generally applicable. In reality, almost all articles here still have unsourced material, and without it we would have a much more minimalist encyclopaedia. I'm not saying we can't move towards the ideal of everything being sourced, but throwing out common sense is something which takes time and has negative consequences as well as positive ones. In practice, the best encyclopaedia comes from only insisting on reliable sources for conentious content. Think of what benefits users the most. I'd rather have a short article full of uncontended but true facts than no article. These views are controversial, but I think it is too easy to delete (ie destroy) and things would be better if people spent more effort on creation. You will see from my AfD record that I have fixed many articles which have come up in AfD as prime candidates for deletion. Ideally, someone would spend their effort in fixing the article rather than deleting it. (I haven't yet gone as far to encourage a referencable article to be written.) In my experience, many articles are started by people who know what they're talking about, and these are fixed up later to meet guidelines and policies. Strict application of the "rules" will prevent this natural process of article creation. I wouldn't oppose a warning tag in the mean time. Stephen B Streater 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Being useful isn't an argument for keeping. At the moment, it seems that if I created a fork of Wikipedia it would be ipso facto notable. Almost all the facts in the article are sourced directly to the wiki. If I wanted to make a point, I could start challenging a lot of the facts for coming from a primary source, and strip the article to the bare bones. And I think that, if I did that, it would be so short as to not be worth keeping (and should be merged or deleted). This is absurd double-standards, based on "I've heard of it" arguments; we regularly delete websites with this lack of sourcing and notability. Trebor 09:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- And if I wanted to make a point, I could delete almost all of every article as unsourced. I think that a tag is more appropriate than an AfD as a first step to give people a reasonable time to source the article. For example, the people running Wikinfo may have access to lots of sources - have they been asked to provide them? This is what I mean by thinking that AfD should be more active. Stephen B Streater 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- If there are more sources, then great - we'll add them and I'll withdraw the nomination. But searching by Uncle G and me haven't brought up anything outside of very trivial mentions in a few places. My problem is that people are arguing to keep, in spite of the lack of sources, and ignoring the concept of notability (and to some extent, verifiability). The fact remains that this is a pretty minor project, and so for it to be the/a primary subject of multiple non-trivial sources seems incredibly unlikely; I'll repeat that if this wasn't connected to us, there'd be no hesitation to delete. Trebor 13:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've put some comments on my talk page. What I will do next is see if I can contact someone from Wikinfo to see if they know of any sources. As an aside, which policy says non-notability is a valid reason for deletion? Stephen B Streater 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- None, notability is a guideline. However, there still needs to be a particular reason for ignoring it, and I don't think "connected to Wikipedia" qualifies as one. Trebor 13:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is a reason it is not policy. And a reason for the notability guideline is to ensure articles are maintained. This is less of an issue for subjects of particular intterest to Wikipedians. And your I LIke It isn't even a guideline - it's just an essay. Anyway, I've put a post on Wikinfo asking for independent sources - lets see if anyone bites. Stephen B Streater 13:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- None, notability is a guideline. However, there still needs to be a particular reason for ignoring it, and I don't think "connected to Wikipedia" qualifies as one. Trebor 13:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've put some comments on my talk page. What I will do next is see if I can contact someone from Wikinfo to see if they know of any sources. As an aside, which policy says non-notability is a valid reason for deletion? Stephen B Streater 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- If there are more sources, then great - we'll add them and I'll withdraw the nomination. But searching by Uncle G and me haven't brought up anything outside of very trivial mentions in a few places. My problem is that people are arguing to keep, in spite of the lack of sources, and ignoring the concept of notability (and to some extent, verifiability). The fact remains that this is a pretty minor project, and so for it to be the/a primary subject of multiple non-trivial sources seems incredibly unlikely; I'll repeat that if this wasn't connected to us, there'd be no hesitation to delete. Trebor 13:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- And if I wanted to make a point, I could delete almost all of every article as unsourced. I think that a tag is more appropriate than an AfD as a first step to give people a reasonable time to source the article. For example, the people running Wikinfo may have access to lots of sources - have they been asked to provide them? This is what I mean by thinking that AfD should be more active. Stephen B Streater 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Being useful isn't an argument for keeping. At the moment, it seems that if I created a fork of Wikipedia it would be ipso facto notable. Almost all the facts in the article are sourced directly to the wiki. If I wanted to make a point, I could start challenging a lot of the facts for coming from a primary source, and strip the article to the bare bones. And I think that, if I did that, it would be so short as to not be worth keeping (and should be merged or deleted). This is absurd double-standards, based on "I've heard of it" arguments; we regularly delete websites with this lack of sourcing and notability. Trebor 09:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence would suggest otherwise. After all, this article has survived two previous nominations at AfD, which would seem to contradict the assertion that the long-held consensus policies and guidelines would ensure deletion. It is true that the gist of the points above is generally applicable. In reality, almost all articles here still have unsourced material, and without it we would have a much more minimalist encyclopaedia. I'm not saying we can't move towards the ideal of everything being sourced, but throwing out common sense is something which takes time and has negative consequences as well as positive ones. In practice, the best encyclopaedia comes from only insisting on reliable sources for conentious content. Think of what benefits users the most. I'd rather have a short article full of uncontended but true facts than no article. These views are controversial, but I think it is too easy to delete (ie destroy) and things would be better if people spent more effort on creation. You will see from my AfD record that I have fixed many articles which have come up in AfD as prime candidates for deletion. Ideally, someone would spend their effort in fixing the article rather than deleting it. (I haven't yet gone as far to encourage a referencable article to be written.) In my experience, many articles are started by people who know what they're talking about, and these are fixed up later to meet guidelines and policies. Strict application of the "rules" will prevent this natural process of article creation. I wouldn't oppose a warning tag in the mean time. Stephen B Streater 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's hardly the "latest" ideology; it's been around for a while and has an accepted consensus. Things aren't notable because they're "interesting". Your comments don't seem very related to this particular nomination, they're more general comments on the system as a whole. I don't think your reasoning has any grounding in the policies and guidelines we currently use. Trebor 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think applying the latest ideology on Wikipedian purity to all articles makes this encyclopaedia better. Many articles, for example the much edited Go, contain a multitiude of unreferenced facts. The question here in AfD is not about what should be in the article, but about whether there should be one. I think that Wikinfo is notable because it is the manifestation of an interesting philosophy, just as I think Wikipedia was notable even before it was widely written about. Wikipedia is not just notable because it is written about. This is a sufficient but not necessary condition. By trying to control editors decisions by imprisoning them in one-size-fits-all rules, there is a risk of driving away intelligent, thoughtful and inspired editors - the mappers - leaving just the packers (you won't find these terms here because they are banned neologisms, but you can find them elsewhere in the context of software development - perhaps I'll add them to Wikinfo). Stephen B Streater 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I still fail to see the relevance to this deletion discussion. Could you link it more obviously please. Trebor 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is an expression: cutting off your nose to spite your face. Wikipedia is moving away from using common knowledge, where people write about what they know, to a more rigorous system of using "reliable" sources. But doing this exclusively this has dangers. Anyone who has been written about knows that even so-called reliable sources are full of simplifications and often made up "facts". My view is that reliable sources should be used to establish contended facts, but not be required for common knowledge which is uncontended. This is actually much more relevant on technical subjects, where elementary knowledge is often not mentioned in the most sophisticated sources. But as no one challenges it, we can work on more difficult areas, which benefit from references. Stephen B Streater 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- (reset indent) Yes, there reason it isn't policy is that there's a lot of dispute over how strict it should be. However, I don't think anyone believes that it should be a measure of whether the article can be maintained or not; that would cause extreme systemic bias. WP:ILIKEIT can't be more than an essay, because it's descriptive, not prescriptive; it does, however, provide strong explanations for why certain deletion arguments don't hold. Trebor 13:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I've said elsewhere, notability has several uses. Ensuring enough interest for maintainability is one, but more significantly enforcement of WP:NPOV and WP:V. Let's see if Wikinfo has any information. Stephen B Streater 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. There's nothing I can add to the very well done nomination, except to lament the fact that the above "Keep" opinions amount to nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT-type handwaving. Seriously, this website has had no substantial coverage by reliable sources for a long time now, and next to nothing verifiable can be written about it. It's non-notable in the extreme, whether or not we like it in our capacity as Wikipedians. (Disclaimer: I was the nominator in AFD #2 and was brought here by this notice). Sandstein 13:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per DGG. Mathmo Talk 13:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's essentially saying strong keep per the previous AfDs. But, by my reckoning, the previous AfDs were seriously flawed: there were numerous ILIKEIT !votes, lots of people didn't respond to challenging of their opinions and I can't see any arguments that I haven't rebutted above. Can you give a reason for ignoring existing policy and guidelines in this case? Trebor 13:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article has had a lot of editors - this itself indicates a level of notability not picked up in the current notability guideline (perhaps we should fix the guideline). On verifiability, which is serious (being policy), the claims about facts made are pretty trivially verifiable by logging on to the system. If the AfD goes for delete, it's not a disaster, as technically this may be the logical consequence of the rules, but would be a possible over-application of rules which would see most of Wikipedia's 1.6m articles deleted. Stephen B Streater 13:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would be a bog-standard application of the rules which we would do to any other article unconnected to the Wiki. If you think the guidelines are broken, fix them, but don't ignore them as they stand. I don't care how many editors are willing to work on the article if almost everything has to be sourced directly to Wikinfo itself. You're now saying that deletion may be a logical consequence of the rules, so why are you !voting to keep? (Arguments should be based on this particular article, not on the system in general.) Trebor 13:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- He probably just takes guidelines as they were originally meant. It is not the dictatorship of rules that makes good encyclopedia, but the wise application of guidelines according to each single case. If there were, for some reason, a decision of mainstream media to ignore a particular presidential candidate, yet he would draw major votes from voters and stand in front of you waving, would you deny him notability because there are no "independend sources" ? (Better do n o t answer.) --219.110.234.90 13:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've yet to hear a compelling reason to ignore them in this case. Everything has either been hand-waving, or a general disagreement with the concept of notability. Trebor 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's disagreement on the purpose of notability. Some people seem to think it stands on its own, but guidelines are merely here to enforce policy, not to be policy. Stephen B Streater 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I kind of feel he is touching on another point as to why I believe it should be kept, guidelines are not meant to be policy. There is more to them than just what is contain in them, and at times we ought to let common sense rule the day. etc... Mathmo Talk 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then I'll ask again, what is the specific reason for ignoring guidelines for this particular nom? Trebor 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wiki users are naturally different from the population at large, this will be correspondingly of much more greater importance, interest, and notability to readers of wikipedia. Mathmo Talk 09:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which goes back to my earlier point of double-standards; we aren't writing an encyclopaedia for ourselves, but for people in general. Trebor 09:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another good point. However, we can write better articles about things we are familar with because we know where to look. Stephen B Streater 15:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which goes back to my earlier point of double-standards; we aren't writing an encyclopaedia for ourselves, but for people in general. Trebor 09:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I kind of feel he is touching on another point as to why I believe it should be kept, guidelines are not meant to be policy. There is more to them than just what is contain in them, and at times we ought to let common sense rule the day. etc... Mathmo Talk 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's disagreement on the purpose of notability. Some people seem to think it stands on its own, but guidelines are merely here to enforce policy, not to be policy. Stephen B Streater 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've yet to hear a compelling reason to ignore them in this case. Everything has either been hand-waving, or a general disagreement with the concept of notability. Trebor 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- He probably just takes guidelines as they were originally meant. It is not the dictatorship of rules that makes good encyclopedia, but the wise application of guidelines according to each single case. If there were, for some reason, a decision of mainstream media to ignore a particular presidential candidate, yet he would draw major votes from voters and stand in front of you waving, would you deny him notability because there are no "independend sources" ? (Better do n o t answer.) --219.110.234.90 13:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would be a bog-standard application of the rules which we would do to any other article unconnected to the Wiki. If you think the guidelines are broken, fix them, but don't ignore them as they stand. I don't care how many editors are willing to work on the article if almost everything has to be sourced directly to Wikinfo itself. You're now saying that deletion may be a logical consequence of the rules, so why are you !voting to keep? (Arguments should be based on this particular article, not on the system in general.) Trebor 13:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article has had a lot of editors - this itself indicates a level of notability not picked up in the current notability guideline (perhaps we should fix the guideline). On verifiability, which is serious (being policy), the claims about facts made are pretty trivially verifiable by logging on to the system. If the AfD goes for delete, it's not a disaster, as technically this may be the logical consequence of the rules, but would be a possible over-application of rules which would see most of Wikipedia's 1.6m articles deleted. Stephen B Streater 13:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'm currently producing a lexicography term paper on Wikis and wikipedia, and I've seen enough independent mentions of WikInfo to consider it notable on its own. Saying it is not notable because it is inspired from Wikipedia would be like saying Nupedia is not notable only because it represent Wikipedia's predecessor: when did you see Nupedia mentioned outside reports on Wikipedia? Circeus 21:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe Nupedia should be deleted, at any rate, the existence of another article is not grounds to keep this one. Could you give me some of the independent mentions of Wikinfo you've seen; outside of the few trivial mentions on the article page, I haven't seen anything. And no, I don't believe that something can be notable because it is inspired by (or even forks) something else, otherwise I could create a fork and immediately get an article. Trebor 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Almost no activity in the wiki's recent changes at all. SakotGrimshine 21:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I believe Circeus when he says that he has found a significant number independent mentions of Wikinfo. I'm guessing these independent mentions were on paper, perhaps in a journal? If Circeus could tell us where to look, I'm sure the article could be improved. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you believe Circeus? You're welcome to your opinion, but I find arguing to keep based on (as yet) uncited sources as rather an odd thing to do. Trebor 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- If Circeus were to add a citation of an offline source to the article, it would not have a link. While such a source would probably be more reliable, not being online, I would either have to trust Circeus, or look for the source myself. If my local library did not have it, I would either have to trust Circeus or not trust Circeus. Since my lack of ability to find it at my local library does not mean that it does not exist, I would choose to trust Circeus. Secondly, finding offline sources, even ones that you have found before, takes time. So, I am willing to be patient. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, but to me it makes more sense to abstain until specific sources are cited or not. Trebor 15:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps that would make more sense. However, finding things in the library takes time, so by the time Circeus finds the sources, the AfD might be over. Therefore, I feel like I should make a decision about whether or not to trust him or her now. If, after a period of time, there is a fourth nomination and no one has found better sources, I may change my vote. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- So you support keeping an article in spite of a lack of sources? With each successive AfD it becomes harder and harder to get something deleted as people will just point to the last one and go "nothing has changed", even if most of the previous arguments no longer hold weight. I could assert that I've looked in lots of libraries and saw no references to Wikinfo anywhere; it might not be true, but would that be enough to convince you to delete? Trebor 16:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I support keeping an article with insufficient secondary sources (it has enough primary sources and a few small secondary sources) in the hope that more/better secondary sources can be added in the near future. Have you thoroughly looked in libraries and found no significant references to Wikinfo? If so, that would probably be enough for me to change to a neutral, since I really don't know whether you or Circeus is more trustworthy / good at looking for things in the library. If you say you found no references (significant or otherwise) whatsoever, I might question how thoroughly you have looked. I can find a few insignificant references on Google Scholar. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, I haven't looked in libraries at all, but that's my point. Verifiability means we have to go on what's proven to be there, not just assertions of what exists. The references on Google scholar give me a 404 error, 3 citations to Wikinfo (not describing it), 2 sources already in the article and a French source I can't evaluate. Trebor 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I support keeping an article with insufficient secondary sources (it has enough primary sources and a few small secondary sources) in the hope that more/better secondary sources can be added in the near future. Have you thoroughly looked in libraries and found no significant references to Wikinfo? If so, that would probably be enough for me to change to a neutral, since I really don't know whether you or Circeus is more trustworthy / good at looking for things in the library. If you say you found no references (significant or otherwise) whatsoever, I might question how thoroughly you have looked. I can find a few insignificant references on Google Scholar. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- So you support keeping an article in spite of a lack of sources? With each successive AfD it becomes harder and harder to get something deleted as people will just point to the last one and go "nothing has changed", even if most of the previous arguments no longer hold weight. I could assert that I've looked in lots of libraries and saw no references to Wikinfo anywhere; it might not be true, but would that be enough to convince you to delete? Trebor 16:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps that would make more sense. However, finding things in the library takes time, so by the time Circeus finds the sources, the AfD might be over. Therefore, I feel like I should make a decision about whether or not to trust him or her now. If, after a period of time, there is a fourth nomination and no one has found better sources, I may change my vote. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have at least one source right at hand: Klobas, Jane et al. (2006). Wikis: Tools for information work and collaboration. Oxford: Chandos Publishing. ISBN 1-84334-178-6. OCLC 63136958. pp 45-46. Circeus 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- And what does it say about Wikinfo? Trebor 16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a basic run-down of its goals and how it goes about it as a wiki (e.g. that it requires registration). It's in a part of the chapter ("Wikis as information sources") that lists examples of Reference Works wikis. The others being, for the record, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Digital Universe, Wikitravel and the Open Guide to London (the only one lacking an article. It's mentioned in City wiki, though). It's briefly referred to in Rosenzweig's "Can history be open source" essay, too. Circeus 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, okay. Still fairly trivial but better than nothing (even if it's kept, I'm hoping the AfD will improve the article's sources). Have you found any other independent mentions? Trebor 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a basic run-down of its goals and how it goes about it as a wiki (e.g. that it requires registration). It's in a part of the chapter ("Wikis as information sources") that lists examples of Reference Works wikis. The others being, for the record, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Digital Universe, Wikitravel and the Open Guide to London (the only one lacking an article. It's mentioned in City wiki, though). It's briefly referred to in Rosenzweig's "Can history be open source" essay, too. Circeus 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- And what does it say about Wikinfo? Trebor 16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, but to me it makes more sense to abstain until specific sources are cited or not. Trebor 15:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- If Circeus were to add a citation of an offline source to the article, it would not have a link. While such a source would probably be more reliable, not being online, I would either have to trust Circeus, or look for the source myself. If my local library did not have it, I would either have to trust Circeus or not trust Circeus. Since my lack of ability to find it at my local library does not mean that it does not exist, I would choose to trust Circeus. Secondly, finding offline sources, even ones that you have found before, takes time. So, I am willing to be patient. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: 486,000 Google hits would count as notable in some people's books. Stephen B Streater 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Number of Google hits are practically meaningless. Quality, not quantity, is what's important. Trebor 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that Wikinfo has only 36,000 articles. The reason for the number of Google hits is that a significant number of sites have mirrored all of Wikinfo. This is itself an indication of notability - no one has mirrored my site, for example. Stephen B Streater 08:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I find it extraordinarily disengenuous to claim that 500,000 Google hits are meaningless. It shows more a POV-pushing then a real intent to discover the facts in this case. Are you actually claiming that wikipedia has a half-million clones spewing meaningless copy pages? If we even had 10,000 bloggers mentioning wikinfo it has far surpassed the necessary bar to keep here. Just the fact alone that there are a half-million pages, makes it significant in terms of googlespansion if nothing else, and that's all we need. Wjhonson 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to play numbers, then there are only 79 unique hits. To put it another way: Wikinfo is a website which has imported tens of thousands of pages from Wikipedia. Wikinfo has been indexed by Google. Therefore Wikinfo will come up with thousands and thousands of results. Having a large website does not mean that you're notable. As to "more a POV-pushing then a real intent to discover the facts in this case", I'd say that's baseless; I was the one advocating looking at the results and seeing what they say, as opposed to a WP:ILIKEIT argument of "this number is big". Trebor 07:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Marginal Keep. Has some 3rd-party sourcing, and has already survived AfD twice. This entire 3rd AfD and its predecessors strike me as nothing but a longwinded variant of "Well, I just don't like it", and outright vindictiveness for it having survived twice already. That it has done so strikes me as basically a consensus not to delete, so this 3rd AfD is bordering on disrupting WP to make a point. I think I may have commented earlier (possibly with a "delete") something to the effect that "so what, I could fork WP myself but that won't make McCandlishPedia notable" (maybe it was in talk or on the 2nd AfD, or in CfD; I don't see it here). That is true, but that doesn't actually seem to be the case here. And further... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comments: DGG: Write an essay. Stephen B Streater: Write an essay. You both raise interesting points that deserve further exploration, though they are not particularly substantive in-context here and now, due to that lack of exploration. Lots of the people who have mentioned notability: Actually go read WP:N; you are badly misinterpreting it, and it has changed a whole lot since ca. Nov. 2006. (Users involved in improving WP:N or at least familiar with the debates about it, like Trebor and UncleG, who don't always agree, I don't mean you, and I'm not talking about a PoV on the topic, but actual understanding of it, whatever your PoV might be.) PS: Un-disclaimer: I have feeling pro or con toward Wikinfo or Bauder. I'm aware of Bauder's ArbCom role and agree with some of his takes on issues and disagree with others. Simply not a factor in my "marginal keep". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please make an effort assume good faith. I didn't participate in the previous AfDs, and they had a large number of ILIKEIT votes. So to say that I'm doing this to be disruptive is completely wrong. It's got nothing to do with me not liking it, I honestly couldn't care less. This is to do with evaluating the sources and considering it as if it were just another website, completely unconnected to us. Considering you think two of the "keep"s are not particularly substantive, and you're only voting for a marginal keep, I see no explanation for assuming my nomination was disruptive. And even if this gets kept, the article will come out better-sourced, which means this discussion will have improved Wikipedia. Isn't that the aim of these things? Trebor 07:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK - I'll write an essay. It's probably worth mentioning that the notability guidelines details sufficient, not necessary conditions eg A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works... and One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines.... Thus it is a logical fallacy to say that something is not notable if it does not meet these guidelines. Stephen B Streater 09:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Article is nothing more than a description of what the website is and does not provide any claim to notability whatsoever. Hopelessly fails WP:WEB and the primary notability criteria by not mentioning "multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources" and is almost a CSD:A7. The nominator makes a very good case for deletion. None of the keepers' arguments seem to be based on policy or guidelines, nor do they argue very strongly for why the guidelines (which do permit exceptions) should be bypassed. Zunaid©® 11:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- An interesting point, but again the logic is backwards. This primary notability criterion demonstrates the subject is notable, but the converse is not necessarily true. Stephen B Streater 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, but it doesn't meet any of the specific criteria either. As it doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines, there needs to be a reason to ignore the rules for this specific case which, as of yet, I haven't seen. The notability guidelines are usually applied very strongly, why not here? Trebor 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's not a rule? The issue for me is not whether this subject is notable, verifyable or neutral, because I think all these conditions are met. Rather it is whether enough can currently be written about the subject to be encyclopaedic. I'm waiting to see what references come up. So far I've come across many many brief mentions which support the current content of the article, and many sites which independently use Wikinfo as a source. Perhaps what I'm mulling is what the minimum article size should be, as not much can be said about this other than when it started, why it started, how big it is, and what its rules are. It's interesting to compare this with what can be said about Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's notable (per pretty much all my other points), and only the very basic points are verifiable to independent sources, everything else is primary sourced. You can write a neutral article but it can only contain facts and figures; nobody seems to have published an opinion on Wikinfo. Trebor 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's not a rule? The issue for me is not whether this subject is notable, verifyable or neutral, because I think all these conditions are met. Rather it is whether enough can currently be written about the subject to be encyclopaedic. I'm waiting to see what references come up. So far I've come across many many brief mentions which support the current content of the article, and many sites which independently use Wikinfo as a source. Perhaps what I'm mulling is what the minimum article size should be, as not much can be said about this other than when it started, why it started, how big it is, and what its rules are. It's interesting to compare this with what can be said about Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, but it doesn't meet any of the specific criteria either. As it doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines, there needs to be a reason to ignore the rules for this specific case which, as of yet, I haven't seen. The notability guidelines are usually applied very strongly, why not here? Trebor 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah one of the classic examples of systematic bias towards including articles about people/projects related to Wikipedia that we like, which we'd quickly delete if they were just some random website. References show 2 mentions of Wikinfo by third parties in articles about Wikipedia, nothing really non-trivial. Fails WP:WEB, so Delete or merge/redirect to appropriate article on Wikipedia. --W.marsh 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps you can point out the last website with 486,000 Google hits to be deleted for non-notability. Stephen B Streater 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:ILIKEIT - this number is big. It's meaningless, what are we supposed to do with these hits? But since you asked, UGOPlayer gets 180,000 Ghits and has been deleted (and is incidentally a lot more "popular" than Wikinfo). Trebor 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well it's irrelevant because we don't use google hits to determine inclusion. Encyclopedia Dramatica gets 135,000, just for reference. If you just want a site that gets a lot of Google hits, Cams.com gets 780,000 and was deleted at afd without much ceremony. --W.marsh 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- We do often use Google as a guide - mostly to prove something is not notable,in fact, when the figure is low. What concerns me is that applying the rules in the way being proposed here equally to all articles would result in huge numbers of them being deleted unnecessarily. I don't see using Wikinfo as a source is a problem - the WIkipedia article is mostly sourced to Wikis, most of those being Wikipedia itself. There are many third party sources - Alexa has 490 web sites linking in, and many of these are articles which mention Wikinfo - more than most articles in WIkipedia have. The problem is, as Trebor says, the depth of the sources. I am still happy to see if anyone at Wikinfo comes up with some more in-depth third party sources. Stephen B Streater 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Er, and I only get 82 results for Wikinfo [1]. This is likely some google oddity, as I set the search to list 100 results per page, and there are only 82 sites mentioning Wikinfo apparently. But it points out that Google hit totals are not very reliable. --W.marsh 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- [2] says Wikinfo is the second biggest general-reference wiki in English (Wikipedia being the biggest). Just as you have little faith in the internet search engines, I also have little faith in the ability of the print media to pick up anything but the very big. Thus I don't automatically assume something is not notable just because they don't have an active PR system (sorry Jimbo!). Stephen B Streater 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but as it says, most of them are imports. The print media pick up that which they think will interest people (and therefore sell); Wikipedia doesn't pick up anything, unless it first picked up by someone else. Trebor 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- You almost say that as if you believe it ;-) The reason there are so many articles not meeting this constraint is that in the old days, people just wrote about what they knew. Wikinfo was such an article. I've been helping to reference article claims and this definitely improves the encyclopaedia. But Jimbo's tag line - repeated in New Scientist this week - is that Wikipedia should contain all human knowledge. Partly for this reason, I think this level of sourcing should only apply to controversial areas. Major article "agree" with me on this, as most generally known facts are not referenced. The rigorous sourcing requirement mentioned so often is a mirage in practice. I can point to almost any fact in almost any article and you will not be able to tell me whether it is mentioned in any of the listed sources. As more sources are added, it gets harder to remove any statement because it gets harder to prove it is not in any source. And while I'm here, the notability guidelines are chosen because they allow articles liked by the authors, as appeal to ILikeIt is self-referential. Stephen B Streater 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- The notability guidelines are chosen for the reasons here, where did you get the idea it was about allowing articles liked by authors? Facts about Wikinfo can hardly count as generally known, anyway. But this is still nothing to do with this particular article. I'll ask again, and I'd love an actual answer: why is this particular article exempt from the requirements we put on all the other? Trebor 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- You almost say that as if you believe it ;-) The reason there are so many articles not meeting this constraint is that in the old days, people just wrote about what they knew. Wikinfo was such an article. I've been helping to reference article claims and this definitely improves the encyclopaedia. But Jimbo's tag line - repeated in New Scientist this week - is that Wikipedia should contain all human knowledge. Partly for this reason, I think this level of sourcing should only apply to controversial areas. Major article "agree" with me on this, as most generally known facts are not referenced. The rigorous sourcing requirement mentioned so often is a mirage in practice. I can point to almost any fact in almost any article and you will not be able to tell me whether it is mentioned in any of the listed sources. As more sources are added, it gets harder to remove any statement because it gets harder to prove it is not in any source. And while I'm here, the notability guidelines are chosen because they allow articles liked by the authors, as appeal to ILikeIt is self-referential. Stephen B Streater 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but as it says, most of them are imports. The print media pick up that which they think will interest people (and therefore sell); Wikipedia doesn't pick up anything, unless it first picked up by someone else. Trebor 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- [2] says Wikinfo is the second biggest general-reference wiki in English (Wikipedia being the biggest). Just as you have little faith in the internet search engines, I also have little faith in the ability of the print media to pick up anything but the very big. Thus I don't automatically assume something is not notable just because they don't have an active PR system (sorry Jimbo!). Stephen B Streater 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Er, and I only get 82 results for Wikinfo [1]. This is likely some google oddity, as I set the search to list 100 results per page, and there are only 82 sites mentioning Wikinfo apparently. But it points out that Google hit totals are not very reliable. --W.marsh 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- We do often use Google as a guide - mostly to prove something is not notable,in fact, when the figure is low. What concerns me is that applying the rules in the way being proposed here equally to all articles would result in huge numbers of them being deleted unnecessarily. I don't see using Wikinfo as a source is a problem - the WIkipedia article is mostly sourced to Wikis, most of those being Wikipedia itself. There are many third party sources - Alexa has 490 web sites linking in, and many of these are articles which mention Wikinfo - more than most articles in WIkipedia have. The problem is, as Trebor says, the depth of the sources. I am still happy to see if anyone at Wikinfo comes up with some more in-depth third party sources. Stephen B Streater 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can point out the last website with 486,000 Google hits to be deleted for non-notability. Stephen B Streater 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Undent* Red Herring argument. Who is saying it's exempt? Not I said the duck. However it doesn't fail the test for notability, it passes it. So what rule do you think it's failing? And isn't it failing that rule your opinion? Or are you claiming it to be an objective fact that no one can dispute? This article is mentioned in five hundred thousand web pages. Are you claiming that's not notable? Wjhonson 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm claiming that's irrelevant to notability as it is currently defined. Point me to multiple, non-trivial, independent mentions in reliable sources, and then notability will be established. Trebor 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- So what policy behind the notability guideline do you think this article conflicts with? Stephen B Streater 22:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mostly verifiability. But that's not really possible to answer, notability isn't purely an application of policy. Trebor 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Stephen B Streater 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Verifiability? I.E. you'd not sure Wikinfo exists? I don't get it. What exactly is the issue with verifiability here? Wjhonson 06:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:V. Obviously it exists, but it has received only trivial mentions in independent sources; everything else is sourced directly to the website. This means the reliability is questionable, because there's been no external fact-checking or analysis. Added to the fact it doesn't meet the notability guidelines, this would make far more sense as a paragraph in a general article. Trebor 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a bad idea. Have you a suggestion which other article? I could do the merge now. Stephen B Streater 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Except there's no consensus to merge (and no, I haven't looked at a target). That's why I started an AfD. Trebor 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a bad idea. Have you a suggestion which other article? I could do the merge now. Stephen B Streater 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:V. Obviously it exists, but it has received only trivial mentions in independent sources; everything else is sourced directly to the website. This means the reliability is questionable, because there's been no external fact-checking or analysis. Added to the fact it doesn't meet the notability guidelines, this would make far more sense as a paragraph in a general article. Trebor 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Verifiability? I.E. you'd not sure Wikinfo exists? I don't get it. What exactly is the issue with verifiability here? Wjhonson 06:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Stephen B Streater 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mostly verifiability. But that's not really possible to answer, notability isn't purely an application of policy. Trebor 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- So what policy behind the notability guideline do you think this article conflicts with? Stephen B Streater 22:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I'll start by saying I haven't voted on the other AfDs before (in fact I've rarely voted at all, I usually tend to miss voting periods :) ) but I'll weigh in as someone who just visited the article as a link from another Wikipedia article (the Enciclopedia Libre article). Personally, I found the page told me what I wanted to know about Wikinfo, and it was written at the same standard of most Wikipedia articles I come across, sure it's far from FA status, but then about 90% of our articles are. :) (And, no I don't know that much about it to add anything useful to it, I come to Wikipedia to learn more about things, and I did that here, and I learned things, therefore WIkipedia has done what it's supposed to with this article. I see no real reason to delete. --Canuckguy 02:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:ILIKEIT, just because the article is passably written and useful doesn't mean we keep it. AfD isn't about the current state of the article. How does what you said excuse a lack of non-trivial coverage. Trebor 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Saw WP:ILIKEIT - I may have misread the intent of the guideline, but, from what I can tell, WP:ILIKEIT is there to prevent support votes that are nothing more than "OMG THIS (subject) IS TEH GREATEST!!1!" which I'm all in favour of having a policy against. However, I don't have feelings one way or the other about the subject (Wikinfo) - although I havne't visited the site yet, I feel I know enough about it from the Wikipedia article. My point is that it isn't much different from many other Wikipedia articles I've seen (at least it isn't a stub!) If it's trivial-coverage heavy, why not leave it there to let others improve it? It may have sat there a while in this state, but I'm guessing not too many Wikipedians have visited Wikinfo as well, as it's "competition" ;). Article has potential to be improved, as does hundreds of other articles that aren't up for AfD. --Canuckguy 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not that it's trivial-coverage heavy, it's that it's only been independently mentioned in a trivial manner. There's no potential to improve, because there's no non-trivial sources (which have been found). An article being useful isn't a reason to keep it. The standard notability guideline (usually applied rigorously to any website) is WP:WEB, and Wikinfo does not qualify under the criteria there. Trebor 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like you to apply to the same logic to Wikipedia - remove all the unsourced statements and primary references. Would the fairly minimal remaining article be an improvement? No, of course not. This article could be improved in future by someone finding a significant article on it, but even the short article there is, which is backed up by sources, is a positive contribution to WIkipedia. Stephen B Streater 17:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Except there doesn't seem to be a significant article on it, which is why it isn't notable. Trebor 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- What is your view on FFmpeg then? Not many third party articles there, but something which anyone involved in Open Source knows about. Would you delete this article too? Stephen B Streater 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have no view on it, and that's not relevant to this discussion. Wikipedia is not consistent. Trebor 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, but appealing to interpretations of guidelines which, if applied across the board, would destroy great swathes of Wikipedia is less desirable than a more gradualist approach. Stephen B Streater 09:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have no view on it, and that's not relevant to this discussion. Wikipedia is not consistent. Trebor 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- What is your view on FFmpeg then? Not many third party articles there, but something which anyone involved in Open Source knows about. Would you delete this article too? Stephen B Streater 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Except there doesn't seem to be a significant article on it, which is why it isn't notable. Trebor 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like you to apply to the same logic to Wikipedia - remove all the unsourced statements and primary references. Would the fairly minimal remaining article be an improvement? No, of course not. This article could be improved in future by someone finding a significant article on it, but even the short article there is, which is backed up by sources, is a positive contribution to WIkipedia. Stephen B Streater 17:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not that it's trivial-coverage heavy, it's that it's only been independently mentioned in a trivial manner. There's no potential to improve, because there's no non-trivial sources (which have been found). An article being useful isn't a reason to keep it. The standard notability guideline (usually applied rigorously to any website) is WP:WEB, and Wikinfo does not qualify under the criteria there. Trebor 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Saw WP:ILIKEIT - I may have misread the intent of the guideline, but, from what I can tell, WP:ILIKEIT is there to prevent support votes that are nothing more than "OMG THIS (subject) IS TEH GREATEST!!1!" which I'm all in favour of having a policy against. However, I don't have feelings one way or the other about the subject (Wikinfo) - although I havne't visited the site yet, I feel I know enough about it from the Wikipedia article. My point is that it isn't much different from many other Wikipedia articles I've seen (at least it isn't a stub!) If it's trivial-coverage heavy, why not leave it there to let others improve it? It may have sat there a while in this state, but I'm guessing not too many Wikipedians have visited Wikinfo as well, as it's "competition" ;). Article has potential to be improved, as does hundreds of other articles that aren't up for AfD. --Canuckguy 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I am in the same boat as Canuckguy. 69.242.227.133 03:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Resigning as I wasn't logged in. Strawberry Island 03:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete sadly, since I can see no evidence of reliable secondary sources. Doesn't matter how much we like it or how many people we direct there with articles inappropriate for Wikipedia, most of the citations are self-referential. The Village Pump is not, I'm afraid, either independent or reliable in this case. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. No reliable secondary sources. It's like feeding the trolls, really. Owww, wait... they've referred to me in their articles now. Hmmph. [3]. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're confused with Wikitruth (which also has dubious notability grounds). Trebor 14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I looked at the article earlier today and somehow missed the giant AfD template. However, I was seriously considering gutting it because the majority of it is (likely unsouraceble) OR and how-to information only of interest to wikinfo contributors. If adequate sourcing can be found, I might be persuaded to argue "keep and rewrite" but right now I have to say delete. Lots of google hits are meaningless if they are trivial or self-referential as most of these are. Eluchil404 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Avoid self reference. If a crap article has a link to Wikipedia, it seems to get kept. We should be more discriminating if it relates to Wikipedia itself, not less. Fails to assert why this little, inactive website is notable. Proto::► 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't fail WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS enough for me to feel comfortable that it's better to delete it than source it. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:07, 8 February 2007 (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.
