Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EvoWiki (Second (?) nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. 7-2 in favor of deletion and no strong Keep arguments or 3rd-party evidence of notability provided. Herostratus 07:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EvoWiki

EvoWiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Speedy kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EvoWiki, arguments like "keep and improve". We kept it, it hasn't improved. The article has no external sources (external link to itself and a spam link for a creationist wiki), no evidence of being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources, no evidence of meeting the criteria of WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's unsourced and I don't find any reliable third party sources talking about it. It appears that it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:WEB, unfortunately. --Charlene 15:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Only 152 unique Google hits for EvoWiki, none of which present reliable sources. -- Kicking222 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB GassyGuy 17:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per rampant freeriderism in the last AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 09:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The website is regularly cited for it's information on the evolution vs. creationism debates (It is cited several times by the Wikipedia for that purpose). The fact that the creationists feel that they have to maintain a response to the wiki with their CreationWiki should be enough evidence that the website is important. Yes, it is currently a really crappy article, but that is NOT a reason for deleting the article. BlankVerse 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case a mention in Creation-evolution controversy might be in order if evidence of their notability is not forthcoming. Note there is no article for CreationWiki. ~ trialsanderrors 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Creationwiki hardly maintains a response to EvoWiki. According to it's stats page, it has over 2,700 article pages. Creationwiki has directly responded to only ten of those, all of which were added more than six months ago. If they did maintain constant responses to EvoWiki, it still wouldn't matter unless CreationWiki was considered important, which it isn't. Prometheus-X303- 08:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree that really crappy is not a reason for deletion, why is it always used? Crappy articles are supposed to be tagged and repaired, aren't they? What if Seattle, Washington had a really crappy article, would it be up for deletion, then again if not repaired in a timely fashion? Still, Blank, could you give me a citation outside of Wikipedia for this, that's not a blog, wikimirror or response to the creation of EvoWiki?KP Botany 22:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per BlankVerse. Unique google hits are completely useless. Microsoft only gets 700 unique google hits. Silensor 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need to list every wiki out there just because we're a wiki. Lovelac7 07:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. -Silence 03:15, 11 January 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.