Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galbijim Wiki

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 keep. Davidpdx 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galbijim Wiki

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment: Watching the List of wikis page I suspected there might be a VfD on this one eventually as well, and since I wrote the article in the first place I'm going to stay neutral on the vote. The site is to Korean articles on Wikipedia as Wookieepedia is to those on Star Wars, meaning that anything that would be of too much detail here can still be written over there, and the two aid each other in that way. That being said, that in and of itself may not make the article notable so I'm going to just let the vote go according to everyone else's wishes. If it is deleted though there should still be a clear limit for when it would become notable in the future. Should there be a few other blog entries, newspaper articles, if so what kind of newspapers and would those in Korean be acceptable, etc. The Wookieepedia article for example also only has a single blog entry as an external link, but its sheer article count seems to have kept it from deletion. Mithridates 10:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nominator blocked as sock of Hardvice, voted delete below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• keep - I personally don't see any reason to delete it. A Wikipedia article about another wiki website seems notable as long as it's properly categorized. It has almost 4,000 articles all related to Korea. I have found a lot of the information there useful. I think it's notable enough to merit its own article. However; maybe should be reduced to stub status, and as the website grows, and as time pasess, it could be expanded further. Merkurix 12:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "A Wikipedia article about another wiki website seems notable as long as it's properly categorized" lots of them have been deleted, kamelopedia, uncyclopedia of stupid, homestarrunner, something based on star wars, and they've even deleted ones with actual notable newspaper sources in them because people demanded the use of multiple newspaper sources. Hardvice 12:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Note that the nominator is a sock puppet of the above user (and this user Hardvice has since been permanently blocked) (repeating what Hipocrite said above). See User:FurryiamIAM and [1]. -- KittySaturn 05:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I believe the person who nominated the article is wrong. The above article does meet noteablity and has recieved The Best 43 Blogs Award [2] for best Wiki blog. In addition, the article has high mention though sites like Dave's ESL Cafe. There is lots of useful information for expats (those who live in Korea). Also it's worth mentioning that FurryiamIAM nominated upwards of ten pages for deletion in one day and he/she has very little in the way of edit history. Davidpdx 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and bloggy source is irrelevant to wikipedia. Anomo 15:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's a good resource and was mentioned on the Marmot's Hole the other day. Tortfeasor 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article is indeed a bit short of the Wikipedia's standards, but it is my opinion that anyone who have had a read through it will agree that it is a detailed wiki about Korea, and the article has potential for expansion. I would also like to draw attention to what Davidpdx said above and

• comment that the nominator, FurryiamIAM is one whose edits consist roughly of: (1) edits about nominating articles for deletion and (2) making rapid empty edits to articles without adding or deleting any content (all of his edits to articles are such useless ones), disrupting Wikipedia. -- KittySaturn 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, looks like the nominator has just been blocked for being a sock of User:Hardvice and making multiple meaningless edits to rack up the edit count. Mithridates 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I half expected the block by the look of his edits, even if he wasn't a sock puppet... -- KittySaturn 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Like porn stars, wikis don't yet have clear guidelines for establishing notability other than an uneven record at AfD, so Furry or Hardvice or whoever is definitely WP:POINT. It should be noted that for many of its articles, Galbijim is literally the only English-language source available. Since I've done a lot of editing and admin work there I feel I should stay neutral but otherwise, I would be voting keep all the way.--ThreeAnswers 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful and relevant. -- Visviva 01:25, 25 July 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.