Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiChristian (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Cool Hand Luke 21:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiChristian

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

This article was nominated for deletion 2 months ago, and that discussion closed as no consensus. As shown by the comment to Talk:WikiChristian, and a personal comment to me at User_talk:Andrew_c/archive9#WikiChristian, editors at the time had an interest in DRV (or at least clearly disagreed with the closure). The article has not changed in the 2 months. There are currently one questionable independent source cited in the article. The claim for notability is based on a list of the top wikis generated by Wikimedia. No awards or recognition, no independent media coverage (and therefore it fails WP:WEB). I believe the arguments for deletion at the last discussion are still valid, and I ask the community to examine this issue again (and I ask the closing admin to consider the weight of the arguments instead of simply counting votes). Andrew c ^[talk] 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The claims of notability of this site come from a Wikimedia-maintained bot. WikiChristian ranks 68th among largest wikis by number of articles, which is quite a feat considering its self-imposed limits on the kind of article it accepts. By total number of views (perhaps the most important criterion), it ranks much higher. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 01:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If it's true that it's one of the top 100 wikis, that's notable enough for me. Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A statistic does not make an encyclopedia article. How much independent verifiable information is there about the wiki outside of the statistic? Seriously.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; the general standard of notability is being noted; there's no evidence that WikiChristian is being noted. Given the subject, there should be at least one or two articles on it in Christian magazines if it really is notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The Wikimedia bot can be considered a reliable source, as it is not influenced by a human bias and updates automatically based on empirical data. Checking manually, they have over 50,000 articles, an extraordinary amount considering the limited scope. Compared to the obviously notable Wikipedias, only 29 languages (out of 253) have over 50,000 articles on all topics; see m:List of Wikipedias. Considering this fact, WikiChristian is 24th of all non-WikiMedia Wikis. The article currently contains sufficient information to be a stub, hence the statistic is not "making the article." Admittedly, a brief Google search (excluding WikiChristian itself, the English Wiki, and Meta) did not find many reliable sources for adding more references, however the influence of the site is clear. An article should not be deleted simply because it is not fated to be larger than a stub or start-class. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do believe the statement cited in the closure of the previous AfD (here, for those who don't feel like clicking) is quite relevant. The nomination centers around the fact that the one non-WikiChristian related source is instead related to the Wikimedia Foundation. While precedent can certainly be set in an AfD discussion, I believe that this is not the proper forum to determine consensus about what is and what is not considered a reliable source - that would best be done at WT:RS. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No. AFD is precisely the forum to determine whether an article can exist on the subject because multiple reliable and independent sources have documented it in depth. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, that it is impossible for an article to ever be anything more than a stub is a criterion for deletion. Another criterion for deletion is that there are no independent sources from which to write an article. Note that this article is almost wholly formed from sources published by the subject (and pages on a wiki where there is no fact checking and peer review process and no way to determine the authors' reputations for accuracy, at that), and is essentially autobiography. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the problems with such things. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you point out where in the Deletion Policy it is stated that an article doomed to be a stub should be deleted? I've just reviewed the page to double check, and it in fact lists marking the page as a stub as an alternative to deletion. The word "stub" appears nowhere in the "Reasons for Deletion" section, nor does "short" or any other form of the word. The CSD only cover articles with absolutely no content - this page clearly is not speediable, as it is more than a simple definition and does provide some background information about the site, albeit not much. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, for the simple fact that there are no reliable sources. Seen by a lot of people? So are adverts. Got a lot of pages? So have databases. What do you propose we write without reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nominator, there are no reliable sources, an issue still unresolved from the first AFD months ago. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep large enough to keep, and the sources are suitable for the article and sufficiently independent to be objective. (Incidentally,lots of databases have articles in WP, and a few advertisements)DGG (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nobody has yet to get around the argument that this article has no substantial coverage in any sources whatsoever, and presumably plenty of people have looked after two AfDs. All that has been found is a listing in a statistical table which says how big it is, which does not satisfy WP:WEB. --Hut 8.5 17:05, 27 December 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.