Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EvoWiki

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 speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EvoWiki

Article fails WP:WEB, WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:RS, and WP:VAIN. Crazecontrolthefurious 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per previous VfD. The references in the article are rubbish, though. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - good reason to suspect bad faith in this nomination. More sources are needed however. Diagonalfish 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Another bad faith nom. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. and improve --Guinnog 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Diagonalfish. Haikupoet 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, possible bad faith nom. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kaustuv. There is much more that can be said about EvoWiki besides the comparisons. PrometheusX303 03:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. No reason to keep this open. Aye-Aye 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep --Peephole 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep!. I agree, this is a spurious nomination. The article needs to be improved, IMO, but that is not grounds for deletion. Moonsword 05:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The article itself needs plenty of work, but that is no reason to delete it. ^BlankVerse 09:00, 2 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.