Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosecpedia

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 of the debate was No consensus. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infosecpedia

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Partly written by Jimbo Wales himself. CalJW 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So what? It's got a whopping 256 articles to it's name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. CalJW makes a good point. Has the nom checked these wikis out? Since the noms give me no info, I think I'll have to default to keep on all of them. -- JJay 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• EXCUSE ME? "Have I checked these out"? Are you applying accepted standards to these votes? I just said this wiki has 256 articles. I deleted 256 articles today alone. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Accepted standards. It's funny you mention that. Where are the accepted standards for nominating race car drivers, award-winning violinists, and internationally-renowned infectious disease specialists to name a few of your recent choices? I would also be curious to know what standards you applied to your 256 deletions. I would hate to think that we might be excising vital submissions from new editors. Although, I'm sure that your speedies are only rarely overturned. -- JJay 09:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't forget top-tier college athletes who are nominated for deletion five minutes after article creation. Sawney 11:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. AfD is looking far too much like pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey today. --Agamemnon2 18:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is well beyond the stage of innocent childhood games. The nom seems to feel he is defending the Normandy beaches on D-Day. He uses a machine gun to kill most incoming, then takes the wounded to AfD. However, like the Czech resistance fighters- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Czech_resistance_to_Nazi_occupation - the underdogs will win out. -- JJay 19:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Its seems as if you're just voting keep to spite the nominator. Say what you will about other noms - this article doesnt meet WP:WEB, it doesnt even come close, so it should be deleted. Agnte 20:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• My original comment above explained it fairly well. -- JJay 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Does not come close. Does not have an Alexa ranking [1], so not in top 100,000. Google indicates only 3 sites even link to it [2] , and one of those is this wikipedia entry. Agnte 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a slow growth does not make a project unnotable. Paul Carpenter 21:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm an admin on Infosecpedia. The site is not (IMO) notable enough to warrant an entry, and it's pretty much unmaintained now (have a look at recent changes -- pretty much all spam). — Matt Crypto 22:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A footnote at best. -Sean Curtin 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:59, 21 December 2005 (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.