Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki (2nd 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CreationWiki

Non-notable Wiki. I don't see any verifiable information from reliable sources and certainly there are no secondary sources cited. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Also, not an especially large number of articles on this wiki either, though thats not a criteria for keep or delete. This was nominated for deletion before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki - 4 months ago), and was "no consesus" with most of the keep votes being bad reasons, such as the idea that we should keep this article because it shows that Wikipedia doesn't hate it. All the keep reasons in the previous AFD had no basis in Wikipedia policy and it probably should've been deleted by the closing admin. Anyways, a brief mention in Christian wikis (which there is now) is enough. Delete per above reasoning. Wickethewok 06:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Christian wikis. The wiki seems to be notable to be mentioned, but the article reads like a soapbox and a possible attack on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 07:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per JIP ST47 11:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Leaning towards weak delete, but this article still violates NPOV, regardless of edits. Also it seems to me to violate the soapbox and indiscriminate collection of information (non-encyclopedic) portions of WP:NOT. --65.16.61.35 15:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or chainsaw-trim if merged to Christian wikis. I find the current entry on that page sufficient, and this wiki definitely isn't notable enough on its own. The current article has a lot of factoids that aren't very interesting and can be left away, or are just tangential rhetoric that has no bearing on the site itself (Runs MediaWiki? Thousands of sites run MediaWiki. Is nevertheless not part of the Wikimedia Foundation? Yeah, like guesstimatingly 99% of all MediaWiki sites. They don't like Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Neither do a lot of people who can't realise most people disagee with them, I'm afraid.) If you trim all that stuff, you end up with not really a whole lot more than what's already in Christian wikis article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (and possibly redirect). This is soapbox content not article content. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An exclusionist wiki makes itself non-notable through its narrow view. Mallanox 12:03, 28 August 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.