Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th 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 Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinfo

Wikinfo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Note the nominator forgot to transclude, so I transcluded it here. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable site with no known reliable outside sources. Delete for similar reason to why we deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica and the other wikis that are "unsourced" (although I am an ED sysop and do know sources for that site). Note I have a bit of an anti-Wikinfo bias, because I have been vicously trolled and harassed by Fred Bauder, the admin of the site. Riboflavinl0l 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Riboflavinl0l 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) — Riboflavinl0l (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete I've visited Wikinfo, but most of their articles are crude outdated Wikipedia articles. Just go there and read their article on George W. Bush. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:ITANNOYSME. This sounds like an "I don't like it" argument, that their articles are low-quality is not a deletion reason. Fimbulwintr 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable as functioning fork of Wikipedia, sources for assertions in article have been provided, we've been over this before. Nominator's honesty about his dispute with Fred Bauder is good, but doesn't justify deletion of article. Casey Abell 03:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Could someone explain what new information has arisen since the last three nominations to merit a further discussion? YechielMan 03:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. per Casey Abell. I'm coming in completely new to this so have no bias I hope. I see sources. 209.121.47.38 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - looks like it has sufficient reliable sources for some kind of notability. I'm not pleased with them, though. --Haemo 04:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The first source (courtesy web.archive.org) actually quotes Wikinfo on Wikipedia. It doesn't actually discuss Wikinfo beyond the mention its an SPOV fork of Wikipedia. The second source mentions Wikinfo in only one sentence, and that's to announce that its a fork from Wikipedia. The third source is German (I think?), so I can't really check it. (German article on an English fork of English Wikipedia?) It seems as though it only mentions it in a single paragraph about a larger subject as well. References 4-8 are self-references. Reference 9 is the software GetWiki mentioning that Wikinfo is running its software. These don't seem to qualify as Reliable Secondary Sources. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - As per others, and simply because I found the article useful. My bias. : ) --Remi 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• redirect to an appropriate article on Wikipedia's impact and relationship to other projects or delete. Passing mentions in 2 reliable sources is still all I see... everything else is referenced to unreliable sources or the site itself. If this was just some blog, we'd nuke it with a snarky deletion summary... keeping it around as a standalone article is pro-Wikipedia inclusion bias. --W.marsh 05:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- It may someday become historically significant, (see previous AfD arguments), but it still lacks sources. Its very easy to look through the two pages of google results, and see that there's not much about it out there. Any sources listed on the References section do little more than mentioning Wikinfo. Miserably fails WP:WEB. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Haemo. semper fictilis 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per wizzard2k. Hut 8.5 08:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Haemo. Not the best page, but a worthy one to pursue. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In addition to references already listed in the article, additional reliable source discussion here: [1]. "About" 204,000 ghits. JulesH 09:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• But there are "exactly" 18 ghits. All I had to do was click next from your link (Google's estimates are notoriously bad, though sometimes fun. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• That's odd. I've clicked through the first 30 pages, so there are at least 300 when I look. Perhaps some of your google settings prevent it working correctly...?

• There appear to be different search results when you search the web using www.google.co.uk and www.google.com . I'm not sure how I managed to only see the 18 results (which is now down to 16) and paste the link above to google.co.uk from the same source, but I'll check into it further. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I also get this message: In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 16 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Definitely a notable website, passes WP:RS. The nominator's statement of bias seems a bit dubious... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 10:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wizard Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• comment If there are no reliable sources, this still gets deleted. Besides, this site has no lulz. Riboflavinl0l 14:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JulesH and others. -- DS1953 ^talk 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable functioning fork of WP. GlassFET 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no reliable outside sources, nothing but otdated crap copied from WP, etc. Have you noticed that when someone afds a non notable Wikipedia-approved website such as this, it always ends in keep, but when someone afds a non-notable site that criticises Wikipedia, like ED, it gets deleted? Obvious signs of bias...Drennleberrn 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Disregarding the apparently bad-faith nom and ignoring the silly vendetta from Encyclopedia Dramatica users, there really is no reliable secondary sources demonstrating notability or allowing verifiability. As others have mentioned, the two or three secondary sources are just passing mentions in the context that it was forked from Wikipedia. Google News Archives only returns one result (one of the above passing mentions cited), LexisNexis returns none. The above sources verify enough information to maybe merit a short mention in History or Criticism of Wikipedia about how Wikinfo forked from Wikipedia and why, but not enough for a full verifiable article. Krimpet (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per others. --Dezidor 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A possible solution is for those who may feel inclined and do not have connection with such sites as this to write publishable articles about them, as a study of information behaviour perhaps, and get them published in some reliable publication. If they are really not worth noticing, presumably no regular publication will take them. I have no immediate plans to do so myself.DGG 04:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator's bias, candidly disclosed, is not a reason to oppose deletion, but Wikinfo has enough articles and enough longevity to be notable. JamesMLane t c 08:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Apparent bad faith nom plus this article has survived 2 previous noms with clean keeps. Ron Ritzman 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep please the site is notable not sure if this nomination is in bad faith or not yuckfoo 01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep For christ's sake, do people just love giving Wikitruth wiki-bashing fodder or do they actually think this article doesn't meet WP:Notability? Because it certainly does. VanTucky 00:46, 6 June 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.