Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illogicopedia

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. Singularity 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illogicopedia

Illogicopedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." WP:WEB states "Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources.". The article is almost entirely cited from the website itself (a primary source).

Sources evaluation:

Sources evaluation
Just another non-notable wiki, the author of the page is an admin from the site. Notability and verfiability has clearly not been established as there is no substantial coverage so therefore fails WP:WEB easily, so delete. Otterathome (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Hm, WP:COI is a concern to me. Otherwise, fails WP:WEB and WP:RS. treelo talk 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Illogicopedia is the product of a lot of effort to be a storehouse of intentionally crafted nonsense, and after one viewing, there's no reason to come back a second time. Maybe this is where all the deleted hoaxes go to. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It only gets trivial mentions in the news articles. The secondary coverage of this website seems to be little more than mentioning its name then moving on to the general concept of comedy/nonsense encyclopedias, very far from in-depth coverage.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment while WP:WEB and WP:RS] may be effective reasons for deleting this, can I please note that WP:COI does not come into this for a second. I may well be an admin on the site but it doesn't mean that I don't know how Wikipedia works and know how to write and article. Hence my one other article not being deleted: I'm a fan of the musician but that didn't cloud my judgement. Much as I provided a balanced account of Illogicopedia. Fair enough, it doesn't meet notability guidlines yet. --—Mr. MetalFlower · chat · what I done did do 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, the list of largest wikis appears flawed: look for example at the number of users vs everything else --90.198.245.77 (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Devour. Shock! Or maybe not. I'm one of the wiki's founding trio and have been keeping the Illogiblog, which has a bit of a section on Illogicopedia in pop culture (ie news reports etc.) so I would probably be in a good position to say Illogicopedia ain't nowhere near notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. HisSpaceResearch hit the nail on the head: the articles referenced only mention the site in passing and Otterathome's sources evaluation shows that at least two refs (I think) are from the same syndicated article. Furthermore, I actually fear that it probably never will be notable enough, perpetually living in the shadow of Uncyclopedia and all. I'm trying to look for a crumb of notability (as I have been for months to try and warrant a WP article) but sadly there are none. I don't normally feel compelled to vote on AFD but I felt, well, I should stick my nose in here. Cue 'Judas' cries... -- Hindleyite (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:RS; fails WP:WEB. It doesn't have anything that qualifies as 'significant coverage from a reliable source'. Most of the sources provided are actually about Kamelopedia, a different website which itself was deleted for non-notability back in 2006. So I don't think this one has much hope of succeeding. Terraxos (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2008 (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.