Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)

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 - "Fails WP:WEB" is a much stronger argument than "passes WP:ILIKEIT" and "passes WP:BADFAITHNOM". A few offhand mentions are generally not held as sufficient coverage. Small bits of content might be added to appropriate articles "Criticism of Wikipedia" or such - ask me and I'll provide you with it if you're not an admin. Offsite canvassing is troubling to number-counting, but the arguments stand on their own. WilyD 14:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinfo

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Wikinfo Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination)
Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th nomination) Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination) Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)
Wikinfo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

A cursory search on the subject suggests a lack of notability; no sources in mainstream news and only trivial coverage in the blogosphere. Most of the inline references don't mention the subject or *are* the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 01:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, as nom. Celarnor Talk to me 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is indeed an important subject in the history of Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is not required to explain its own subculture, as much as the amazingly comprehensive Criticism of Wikipedia article might make you think otherwise. There is a wiki called MeatBall which covers the "meta" subjects for c2.com's WikiWiki. Similarly, this article might be useful to some wiki (Meta?) which exists to preserve Wikipedia's history and famous debates and so forth. However, as a subject in its own right Wikinfo fails WP:WEB. It is cited in scholarly articles only as an offshoot of Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Cited sources do not seem to denote this subject as adequately notable. Would be happy to reconsider if additional references were added. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would also be amenable to moving this out of article space to an appropriate place in Wikipedia space. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Good article on an interesting subject, I am baffled as to why it would be afd'd. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT?! Shii (tock) 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC
No, I like it would be a complete misreading of my comment, I am talking about its educational value and worth tot he encyclopedia, my personal view is that its a subject that does not particularly interest me but my own view is, as you say, not relevant. Thanks, SqueakBox01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
It doesn't meet notability guidelines. Very little to no coverage in reliable sources. Celarnor Talk to me 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I read the other AFDs a few minutes ago, and have looked through the previous AFDs, and say delete. We have three sources. One book: so far so good. Erik Moller's article: so far so good. The Journal of American History: this is good. Three sources, for one site, but no other notability? The essay at http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html only mentions it trivially, so doesn't count, and Joseph Reagle he doesn't appear to be particularly notable[1]. That said, I say delete. It's status as a fork of Wikipedia has no notability value in and of itself, and we have a grand total of three sources. That doesn't strike me as notable enough. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete none of the cited (neutral external) mention wikinfo other than in passing as a fork with a different philosphy - not notable. ViridaeTalk 01:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Per the 6 previous AfD's. This is an abusive nomination, suspiciously made less than 2 hours after this article was mentioned at the contentious Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD. Z00r (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How is that in any way abusive? ViridaeTalk 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, first of all it is abusive to nominate an article again and again and again and again and again and again until finally the right set of people happen to show up and the vote works out in your favor. Secondly, it is abusive to create a nomination for one article for the purpose of affecting the outcome of another article AfD. Z00r (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Want to back up that bad faith assertion with a bit of evidence? ViridaeTalk 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Um... the ED article is up at AFD five times, some article have gone 10+ times... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How is this abusive? Someone pointed out an article to me that was poorly cited. I nominated it for AfD. It's been more than a few months. It has nothing to do with the ED article (which I think is much better sourced and should be speedily kept). And I've never participated in a discussion on this material before. I didn't even know what it was until now. Please assume good faith. Celarnor Talk to me 02:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Very well, it seems that you are acting in good faith, despite the suspect circumstance. Here are a select set of reasons, culled from the previous AfD's, that demonstrate why I think it should be kept:
        • It is notable not as a website, but as an open source project fork of a very notable project. Thus, WEB is irrelevant. (It is listed here as one of the 43 best wikis (not that it really is)). (post originally by BrokenSegue 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC))
        • Keep per my belief that this is a historically important wiki. The Wikipedia:Notability (web) is a guideline, not a suicide pact. (post originally by Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC))
        • I find it extraordinarily disengenuous to claim that 500,000 Google hits are meaningless. It shows more a POV-pushing then a real intent to discover the facts in this case. Are you actually claiming that wikipedia has a half-million clones spewing meaningless copy pages? If we even had 10,000 bloggers mentioning wikinfo it has far surpassed the necessary bar to keep here. Just the fact alone that there are a half-million pages, makes it significant in terms of googlespansion if nothing else, and that's all we need. (post origionally by Wjhonson 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
        • A fork of a very well known project can be notable if t here are sources to show it's well known, and there are. Just barely, but sufficient. Paid sources are acceptable. Paid external links, no, but as sources, sure. (Post originally by DGG (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
        • Z00r (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The first one of those claims WEB doesn't apply, but it still has to be notable somehow. This even fails the heavily inclusionist general notability guidelines (i.e, multiple bits of non-trivial coverage grant notability). The second one is ILIKEIT, and the third is something between ILIKEIT and THISNUMBERISHUGE. I can't really make anything out of the fourth comment, since I don't really know what independent reliable sources he's talking about. Celarnor Talk to me 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Ahh yes, WP:EPTBP (Essay Pretending to be Policy) Z00r (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the fact that of the previous multiple AFDs over the course of the last 12 months alone, all but one were WP:SNOWBALL keeps. Do we need to keep revisiting this every few months? 23skidoo (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Got an answer to the claims of lack of notability. ViridaeTalk 02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Why should anyone have to respond to claims, especially empty ones. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • None of those sources are non-trivial. Care to point out one that is? ViridaeTalk 05:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The second ref doesn't look trivial, and nor does the 3rd ref though as theat is in german i cannot understand it to judge its non-triviality. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • You are of course aware then that that second source you refer to refers to wikiinfo once, in passing. Seems pretty trivial to me. You can also hardly use the german language source as notability - because you and i don't know what it says. (hell there is not guarantee it is even about wikiinfo) ViridaeTalk 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
              • The German ref does contain a paragraph about Wikinfo and NPOV but it doesn't constitute non-trivial coverage. The first ref barely mentions Wikinfo (only says it's a fork followed by a quote from Wikinfo about Wikipedia). Even if we assume that the German source is non-trivial coverage we are one ref short of notability. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
              • This is the first time I've heard the argument that a source must be in English in order to confer so-called notabiliy. - Nhprman 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Here's a Google translation (bumpy, but readable) of the German-language source ("Der Stein der Wikis" by Erik Möller 11.04.2005). The entire coverage of Wikiinfo is in the third paragraph under the "Vergabelte Content" (Vergabelte Inhalte) section. The coverage is a total of one paragraph of four sentences. It's too much of a stretch for us to interpret that as anything other than a brief summary of the nature of the content, WP:WEB's relevant definition of "trivial". Noroton (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Not substantially different from prior versions kept. MBisanz talk 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Shii above. Fails WP:WEB every way you look at it. The cited sources are either self published or trivial per our usual standards. Non-trivial means non-trivial. It isn't exactly rocket science. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no strong opinion about this article, but in the event it is determined to not be appropriate for the article namespace, I would like to request that it be moved to the project namespace rather than just be deleted. It might be similar to a page move I did a while back for Wikipedia:Semapedia. Notable or not, it's probably useful information to document somewhere on the project. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Excellent idea. Whether or not it meets notability standards, it's useful for Wikipedians, so it would be an appropriate move. Noroton (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, which is the guideline for such matters. Ned Scott makes a good suggestion - as an atlernative to deletion, a move to project space would be agreeable. Neıl ☎ 10:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WEB applies to sites we like, too. Arguing based on previous AFDs is pretty weak... just because the ballot box was stuffed before doesn't mean we have to keep electing the village idiot out of tradition. --Rividian (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Strong keep for reasons given in the previous five AfDs. This does seem a bit like "keep trying until I get the result I want"... Klausness (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment A) it can't be speedy kept when there are valid delete !votes and B) consensus can change so assume good faith and give us a source showing non-trivial coverage. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • (a) Fair enough, changed to strong keep. (b) Consensus is unlikely to change after five AfDs. I do try to assume good faith, but it's difficult to do so with a sixth AfD that gives no new reasons for deletion. As for sources, the article already has them. Klausness (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep 6th nomination? Nominations again and again... Keep per all good arguments that were written in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th nomination. --Dezidor (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED for why this argument is not really valid. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • what good argument would they be? They certainly dont overcome the current lack of significant coverage required by WP:WEB ViridaeTalk 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete sources have not been brought to the table, so fails WP:WEB. Are we keeping this because it was started by a well-respected editor? EJF (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely and utterly fails WP:WEB by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. I'm perplexed how this was kept so many times before. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep many Wikipedia articles are about far less notable subjects.Barbara Shack (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm too much of an inclusionist to vote "delete" on this, but there is some hypocrisy in that some of the same people who are insisting on a really high standard of notability for ED are voting to keep this one despite a lack of coverage outside our own little wiki-universe. And people are condemning the repeated attempts at deletion here when both sides of the ED debate have practiced the "When at first you don't succeed, try try again" strategy whenever their side lost the last round. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikinfo is a notable growing community with a unique set of policies including Sympathetic Point of View and the ability to write Signed Articles (which are labeled as such) and the ability to grow articles that are stubs without repeated deletion attempts (not pointing any fingers here, but...) More than just a copycat encyclopedia, and worthy of continued inclusion here. Also, an excellent alternate culture to the flawed Deletionist mentality here on Wikipedia, which, ironically, this rather bizarre AfD process illustrates perfectly. Empty claims, urgings to read biased essays that are not policy but only guidelines, and actual policies that have been gang edited to defend rampant deletionism don't sway me, and I hope someday they stop swaying other editors here. - Nhprman 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Right. Wikipedia:Notability is a widely accepted and longstanding guideline, and Wikipedia:Verifiability in fact is policy which this article fails miserably at. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The only empty claims here are the notability claims of this subject. I'm an inclusionist in favor of keeping most things, but this fails any concept of notability whatsoever, and even only barely scrapes by verifiability. Celarnor Talk to me 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Solicitated vote[2] EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Per this[3] they are now asking former Wikipedians to come here and vote. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I see you're shocked, SHOCKED that there's solicited votes going on in AfD's. Wonder how everyone here found out about this? Not worth longwinded arguing the point here. - Nhprman
    • This is a rather disappointing bit of off-wiki canvassing. Users actively involved with a project really can't be expected to evaluate an AfD concerning that project impartially; that's only realistic. Canvassing isn't likely to change the outcome of the debate, as our admins are competent enough, but it might result in a mini train wreck. Obviously users who don't contribute here aren't bound to en-wp policies like WP:CANVAS, but this seems plainly unconstructive. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Point one: I hope no one ever edits about things they know about. That would be rather "impartial" wouldn't it? (sarcasm) For the record, I've never edited this article. Secondly about canvasing, you're kidding, right? How did YOU discover this page - was Wikinfo on your watchlist already? Doubtful. In every single AfD I've ever participated in, I've seen a HUGE amount of canvassing, largely from Admins, and in fact, this page is listed on at least TWO lists of active AfDs, directing people, in effect, to go and delete this article. Thirdly, you should WP:AGF and not assume that those who are coming to this page aren't also regular, longtime WP editors as well, as I am. Not that others don't heve every right ot be here and speak out, too. Believe me, some of these Wikinfo editors know very well what goes on here and what the policies are. (And that's why they're at Wikinfo now.) Finally, WP:CANVAS urges "common sense" when applying this guideline, not the standard rigidity that these essays are often interpreted to require. - Nhprman 00:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, I arrived here via a link on another AfD; no that's not inappropriate canvassing. WP:CANVAS makes the distinction clear -- AfDs generally don't have prejudicial audiences, while Wikinfo does (in the context of an AfD for Wikinfo, that is). This is why transcluding an AfD on the daily list of AfDs isn't considered inappropriate canvassing. It is also inappropriate, according to the same guidelines (which I think are very sensible), to engage in off-wiki canvassing without disclosing it on-wiki.
        • I'm all for "leaving it to the experts" where appropriate, but I'm not really convinced that general en-wp editors are unqualified to judge this without assistance. It's the same software (well, a fork with minimal differences), most of the relevant info (sources, wiki stats, etc.) is trivially easy to obtain, and most of us here have considerable familiarity with the project whether we choose to participate there or not.
        • If the Encyclopedia Dramatica folks engaged in the same sort of off-wiki, undisclosed canvassing for the ED AfD, would you consider it appropriate? Presumably not. Wikinfo may have more noble aspirations, but it's only reasonable to expect partiality from Wikinfo editors participating in this AfD. Perhaps the canvassing was done in good faith, it's just disappointing to see very reasonable (and intuitive) guidelines being neglected like this. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of reliable independent sources about the subject, rather than mere passing mentions. Does not meet notability standards. I am disappointed by the canvassing that that has been shown to have taken place regarding this discussion, which I hope the closing admin will take into account. WjBscribe 23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Has enough sources to establish notability. This is an Otherstuffexists nom, as this all came out of the ED nom. Seriously, do we only want to delete this because it criticises Wikipedia? Don't we have more dignity than that? I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I note with some amusement that the 2nd nomination for deletion of Wikinfo's article here "seems to have been initiated by a vandal's sockpuppet" according to the person who nonetheless took up the baton on that deletion attempt, and the 4th nomination for deletion started with the bold statement "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." Why this was allowed to get to a 6th deletion attempt is beyond me, given the outright bias presented in previous attempts, which often amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Nhprman 01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it needs an objective analysis from editors to decide whether or not this can stay without meeting notability guidelines without the influence of ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT. Celarnor Talk to me 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep abusive nomination. Previous history: 2 keeps, a non-consensus, the another 2 keeps. There should be a clear policy against eve doing this. the present situation is asymmetrical--after a single delete it cant be recreated without deletion review, but after any number of keeps anyone can just go and try again until by chance the atmosphere is right. Lets say there's a 10% error rate each way at AfD in making the correct decision. Obviously, if you keep at the articler enough, theodds will be overwhelming that you'll succeed once--and once is enough. Like shooting at a target till you eventually chance to hit. You may miss 90% of the time, but eventually you'll get there no matter how inaccurate. Not that consensus has changed, or your skill has improved. DGG (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I am unconvinced that the mere number of AfDs or DRVs is sufficient to keep or delete any article or protect that article from further such discussions. Multiple such discussions in an unreasonable period of time is certainly a problem. The most recent AfD for this article was many months ago so this AfD does not seem unreasonable to me. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I *AM* convinced. DGG lays out perfectly the Deletionist tactic of "trial until guilty." This is an obvious tactic to reduce content on Wikipedia regardless of how many times the attempt has failed to generate consensus. If the article has been degraded in any way, the Deletionists here should please note why and how it has changed for the worst since the last 5 deletion attempts. If ANY improvements have been made, then the case for deletion is EVEN WEAKER than before, and it's even MORE insulated from deletion than in the past. IMO, the actually argument grows even weaker with each passing attempt. Unless of course the argument is "We didn't attract enough deletionists in the past," Then the AfD process is kind of exposed for what it is - a content deletion mechanism, at all costs. - Nhprman 02:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikinfo shows up with 91,000 google hits. Encyclopedia Dramatica shows up with 146,000 google hits. How many Google hits exactly defines "notable"? Keep it. Besides which, its philosophy lays right alongside Wikpedia with that single, particular difference, "sympathetic point of view", making an obvious comparison for those interested in tracing Wiki developments. Jim Bough (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Luckily we don't determine notability by counting google hits isnt it. ViridaeTalk 05:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You probably want to review notability guidelines. Notability is determined by multiple pieces of independent coverage in reliable sources, which this doesn't have. Celarnor Talk to me 08:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Shii says it all really, and yes, it is less notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica. Also (and although this does not correlate with notability) it has an extremely low Alexa ranking.--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And I don't find the keep arguments very convincing here. It doesn't matter how many times something has been through AfD, look at the GNAA or Brian Peppers.--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just enough coverage to indicate notability. Those 404s need to be fixed though! Bill (talk|contribs) 12:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Move into the Wikipedia namespace. Not much in the way of independent coverage; the blind assumption of notability put forward by others here reflects a Wikipedia-centric bias. Mackensen (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB per various comments above (rather blatantly in fact). All sources are only a passing mention. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It's very simple. WP:WEB requires multiple sources that are not trivial in amount of coverage. There are three independent sources of potentially non-trivial information cited at this article. One of them is behind a $10 subscription wall. The other two meet the WP:WEB description of trivial amount: a brief summary of the nature of the content. Every other argument amounts smoke blowing, contrary to AfD deletion policy as described at WP:DGFA#Rough Consensus, and that guideline instructs closing admins to discount !votes contrary to Wikipedia standards, logic or the facts. Do we follow the notability guidelines or not? Do we have a single standard for both the articles/subjects we like and the one's we don't? Anyone voting differently here than at the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD should really think about explaining the difference, because there's a rotton stench of hypocrisy in the air (there can be reasons for voting differently -- for instance, there are more sources cited there than here -- but if you don't explain them, it looks like hypocrisy). The information can be moved into Wikipedia space, as Ned Scott suggested above (timestamp 04:44, 16 May), which is where non-notable subjects of interest to Wikipedians belong. Noroton (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would support a move to the Wikipedia namespace. I don't have a problem with the Wikipedia namespace being used for that purpose and the article could live a quiet and undisturbed life there. Seems like a sensible compromise to me. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Abusive nomination and there is enough substantial secondary coverage by reliable independent sources to warrant inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Inclusion of this AfD on a "Wikiproject:Deletions" page is Canvasing by another name, although the effect of posting it on that page - and others - is "come delete stuff" rather than the "come save stuff" that is more likely through individual invitations or postings on articles and wikis with similiar interests. There is simply no difference. If one is illegitimate, than so is the other (although the deletionists probably have created a few clever essays to justify these 'projects,' which I find contrary to a positive article-creating encyclopedic experience.)- Nhprman 02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If you can point to two non-trivial, secondary reliable sources, that would mean this passed notability guidelines and I'll withdraw this right now. Celarnor Talk to me 02:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Here is what they are trying to pass off as non-trivial coverage from the The Journal of American History article: As Wikinfo (a fork, or spin-off, from Wikipedia) explains: "A wiki with so many hundreds of thousands of pages is bound to get some things wrong. The problem is, that because Wikipedia has become the 'AOL' [America Online] of the library and reference world, such false information and incorrect definitions of terms become multiple incompetences, propagated to millions of potential readers world-wide." It's not about Wikinfo - it's about Wikipedia! Oh, and I want my money back! EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I wish to announce that Economics Guy, in recognition of his spending cash in addition to his time for the advancement of knowledge for us all, has been duly awarded a "Lorenzo" a/k/a the Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching Citation of the Monied and Munificent Order of Wikipedian Patrons of Civilization, as so sported on his user page. Noroton (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the Telepolis article has a paragraph about Wikinfo, as does the extended version of the Forschung & Lehre article (I don't have access to the published version, so I don't know what that has). I think those do (barely) qualify as non-trivial, and the sources appear to be reliable (assuming that the published version of the second article includes the Wikinfo stuff). Klausness (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - regardless of the good-faith or otherwise of the nomination, this website simply doesn't seem to satisfy WP:RS. I count only one source that provides significant coverage. (Oh, and if it matters - I !voted exactly the same way on ED, I don't think either of them pass WP:WEB.)Terraxos (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Very useful as a pressure valve in heated debates when people want unsourced opinions here - as in Write a Wikinfo article if you want your opinion published or That is what Wikinfo is for - and look how popular that is. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What does that have to do with including a Wikipedia article on it? There are lots of places you could theoretically go if you were annoyed with Wikipedia... that doesn't mean we have to have an article on every one of them. --Rividian (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It save time when sorting out real WP issues. Given that time is a limiting constraint for most people here, and that WP:NPOV and WP:V are the biggest problems most new users have here, things which help conclude arguments more quickly in these areas are generally good. It is often easier to deflect energy than to neutralise it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Then why keep it as an article? It could "deflect energy" just as effectively in the Wikipedia namespace. --Rividian (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't have a problem with that either. I only oppose Wikipedia trying to control access to knowledge in a self-serving way. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Much like Citizendium and Conservapedia, it is a legitimate online encyclopedia with interest and use not necessarily related to Wikipedia's internal politics. Very much unlike ED I might add, which is just an attack site entirely dependent on Wikipedia internal politics and therefore not notable outside of Wikipedia-land. KleenupKrew (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Notability makes no such distinction. I don't buy it either. ED, which actually discusses chans and non-Wikipedia material has been cited for such, whereas both Conservapedia and Wikinfo are "we're not Wikipedia, which really sucks!"--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I see no consensus for deletion in this discussion. --Dezidor (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And I see no arguments that address the concerns raised so it looks like this may not be over regardless of the outcome. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; fails WP:WEB, especially as actually applied in recent AfDs. The cites don't give independent, non-trivial coverage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Never heard of that site, but the nomination itself seems a little disruptive to me (as a "revenge" for AfD of ED article). However, I see less sources than ED has, so it's very weak delete --Have a nice day. Running 21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete - seems not notable enough based on notability criteria used for afd's of other websites. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The real issue here seems to be with the terms "trivial" and "non-trivial". Perhaps we need to review and define what these terms mean precisely according to Wikipedia policy, and then this discussion can get somewhere.--AaronCarson (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's been defined here as "a brief summary of the nature of the content". A sentence or two, basically, that just rehashes what Wikinfo is (or says it is, more often). That's trivial content, since we couldn't form a useful article with that. People have mentioned Conservapedia... I recall hearing a 5-10 minute piece on NPR about Conservapedia, which included extensive discussion about the validity of its viewpoint on the history of the US Democratic Party, contrasted with Wikipedia's. To me that is an example of non-trivial coverage. I just haven't seen that kind of coverage for Wikinfo. --Rividian (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • To me 3 sentences constitute trivial coverage. If 3 sentences or even a minor paragraph in 2 reliable sources was enough even I would be notable as would a lot of other people whose name has appeared in the local newspapers at some point in their life. It takes more than that, it needs to actually cover the subject in some detail to be non-trivial. I'm just not seeing that anywhere in this case. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; fails WP:WEB as discussed above, ad nauseum. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete despite several previous AfDs and plenty of time we still do not have multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. As many people here are interested in writing articles about wikis (for obvious reasons) what coverage that has been presented is probably the result of an extremely through search. 2-3 sentences in the middle of a text about Wikipedia does not equal substantial coverage, through it may be enough to justify a mention in Criticism of Wikipedia or History of Wikipedia. This is nothing like Conservapedia, which has loads of press coverage. Hut 8.5 10:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Can someone who is asking for the deletion of this article please explain how it's gotten WORSE since the last five attempts to delete it? If nothing's changed, were a majority of the participants of the past AfD's simply ignorant, stupid or duped? Or, if we are to assume good faith (as we should) were the previous participants just convinced that this article had merit as a description of a fork of Wikipedia with significantly different and unique policies that deserves mention in a supposedly all-encompassing encyclopedia? Or does WP no longer aspire to be such a place?) - Nhprman 14:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • You are making the (incorrect) assumption that the community is not allowed to change its mind about an article. In addition, several of the debates took place some time ago (and the notability criteria have probably changed since then) and not all the discussions were even closed as a consensus to keep. For the record my opinion has not changed since I commented in the discussion which took place this time last year. --Hut 8.5 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It hasn't gotten worse. The problem is that it hasn't gotten better, consensus can change, and there still isn't anything in reliable sources that indicate the notability of the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 17:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still fails WP:WEB for lack of sufficient substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, as noted umpteen times above.  Sandstein  19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] artibrary section break

  • Comment I am particularly distressed at statements like "Fails WP:WEB", that are so prevalent at AfD's these days. These statements fundamentally misconstrue the notability guidelines. WP:N states, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.". This means that having nontrivial secondary source coverage guarantees notability, but the converse is not true - a lack of sources alone cannot override other arguments for notability. The same is true for WP:WEB. This article is notable for all the reasons above, and all the reasons in the previous 6 AfD's, which have not been sufficiently rebutted by those here voting "delete, fails WP:WEB". Z00r (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:V, which is core policy, is what demands nontrivial secondary source coverage. A lack of sources can and should override every argument of notability. Furthermore, this is not "currently does not cite"; this is not an article where limits of time or space mean that many citations are currently hard to find; Wikipedia editors have read literally every word ever published in reliable sources on the subject. If it ain't here, it probably doesn't exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:V requires nothing of the sort. It requires that Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.". Material unlikely to be challenged does not need to be cited (although it is still a good idea where possible). Additionally, WP:V does not care if the coverage is "trivial" or not, so long as it backs up the facts it is cited for. Z00r (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think this counters ZOOr's point: Wikipedia: Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines: Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. That's what this exception is all about. By this point, sources would have been added to meet the notability guidelines if sources could be found. Conclusion: It can't readily be sourced. Noroton (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't even require them to be added to the article to withdraw my nomination. Simply listing them here would be good enough for me. But it's pretty clear that no RS sources with non-trivial coverage exist. Celarnor Talk to me 01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The exception is about more than just the potential existence of sources, it is about subjects that may be notable even if there are no sources about them. For example, we recognize that colleges, cities, airports, and the like are notable even if they are not covered in secondary sources. Similarly, via the arguments presented in this and the previous AfD's, I hold that Wikinfo is notable even though it lacks coverage. Z00r (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Inherent notability doesn't exist for web sites. See WEB. Celarnor Talk to me 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, inherent notability isn't policy or even a guideline. It is, as you put it in regards to "Arguments to avoid during deletion discussions", an "essay pretending to policy". Celarnor Talk to me 02:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If a topic meets notability standards per WP:N, then WP:WEB cannot be used to "remove" it's notability. WP:WEB simply provides another way for web-based topics to be notable, and clarifies some other web-specific points (advertising, etc).
As for the "inherent notability" wording, I was not referring to that essay or the arguments contained therein (I didn't even know that the essay existed until now). My point was that 1) WP:N intentionally states that things may be notable even if there are no sources, and 2) this notability "fuzziness" is routinely used for more than just technical reasons (technical reasons such as the sources exist but can't be found).
Now, if you want to turn the subjective and subtle issue of notability into a mechanical process of reference counting then that is fine, but the proper way to do that is by changing the policy. Z00r (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe you're misinterpreting WP:N. It says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. [...] "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail," and "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." The section you quote about not requiring sources says "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." I think it's clear we can't readily establish notability, or it would have been done. So it fails WP:N.
There's no such thing as a real college, city or airport that doesn't have sources. There are bureaucracies surrounding the creation of sources for these things. We delete articles on neighborhoods all the time, because they don't have the same types of sources as cities.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There are tens of thousands of rural cities that have never been given nontrivial coverage in a third party reliable source. As for the rest of your points - we are talking in circles. 1) The source guidelines at WP:N establish sufficient but not necessary conditions for notability, 2) there are other ways to establish notability besides coverage in 3rd party sources, 3) the non-source based arguments in the previous 6 AfD's convince me of the notability of this topic. Z00r (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Notability requires objective evidence. There's no objective evidence here. Just a few paltry mentions in articles about other subjects. Whatever way you look at, this fails WEB, and even fails the incredibly broad and including general notability guidelines, which only require a few sources for notability and nothing else. This subject doesn't even have that, and frankly, I'm surprised that it has survived as long as it has in the deletion-heavy atmosphere of Wikipedia. And you're wrong about cities. Going through the cities category, I wasn't able to find anything that didn't assert notability. I found cities with references to historical works, books on the city, tourism guides, and specials on the cities that had happened on the local news. All reliable sources, all verifiable, all objective, unlike what we have here. Here we don't have anything. Celarnor Talk to me 04:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Evidence was provided near the top of the page, and you disputed whether the evidence is sufficient, which is your perogative. I do not wish to debate it further, both of our views are known. Z00r (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? Where? I've lived in Woods County, Oklahoma, so if these undocumented cities exist, I should have seen them. Let's take Ingersoll, Oklahoma, because it has a population of 18, IIRC. It's an unincorporated community, which isn't quite a city, but we'll run with it anyway. A search on Google Books turns up "A History of Ingersoll, Oklahoma," The Chronicles of Oklahoma. Vol. XXX, No. 1 (Spring, 1952), p. 129 and Ghost Towns of Oklahoma both having serious coverage on the topic, and plenty of casual mentions. Step two would be to look at the Alva Review-Courier, which has a hundred years of records on the city.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hundreds of thousands of autogenerated trivial searchspam pages for all registered city names ("weather for city X", "chiropracters within 20 miles of X", etc) are making it difficult for me to conclusively disprove your statement, but suffice it to say that most small towns of less than 100 people have much less coverage than Ingersoll, Oklahoma (Ingersoll being surprisingly historic due to its tile elevator). It would be highly unlikely that, out of all of the towns in the world, there aren't a significant number that have little to no substantive third party coverage of them (not that the actual existence of such a town matters - a thought experiment would suffice). But now we are getting way off topic... Z00r (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ingersoll is not historic due to its tile elevator; just about every place has something. It's probably more historic for nearly being the capital of Cherokee County and descending from a population of around 1000 to 18. Moreover, part of what I missed with taking an unincorporated city is stuff like Amorita, Oklahoma, where we can say a lot just off the census material that every city in the first world has. Not only that, you miss part of the point; that the Alva Review-Courier and like publications are not web-accessible, but have a huge amount of information on these cities. A thought experiment doesn't suffice; we're claiming we keep cities because they always have sources. If you can't find one without those sources, then it's a pretty solid claim.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is notable, easily found a number of presented or published, third party papers that cite Wikinfo and its interesting concept to content and dispute resolution. e.g. [4], [5]Journal of American History, Viable Wikis: Struggle for Life in the Wikisphere, perhaps in this paper too. Also I think AfD'd 6 times is a bit much (my first vote on it though). Given the problems we have here at WP, I am almost surprised that WP doesn't advertise Wikinfo.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • None of those say Wikinfo's concept is interesting... they just verify Wikinfo exists. There are sites that verify my blog exists... that doesn't mean we have an article on it. --Rividian (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Several papers, including academics, especially note its basis and concept in contrast to WP. That is sufficient.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion... but in our actual notability guidelines, there is a requirement for non-trivial coverage, not just a mention of existance. --Rividian (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, we're allowed to change rules to advance the goal of Deletion. TheNautilus has provided secondary sources, and that is now deemed - in your opinion - not good enough? I believe the Notoriety - I mean notability - guideline is being rather strictly and incorrectly interpreted, as it is often by those who wish to simply delete - Nhprman 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think our reading of WP:N is entirely defensible. I'm fairly inclusionist, but there's nothing in the sources to work from, besides bare mentions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's all just too trivial. We can't write an article based off of mentions that it exists and it's a Wikipedia fork. There has to be objective, substantive coverage. Celarnor Talk to me 17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lack of reliable third party sources that have significant information on the subject, an issue which is at the root of our notability guidelines. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • strong delete no notability, only one or two google news hits, and they're in German.[6] Sticky Parkin 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - non-trivial mentions in several published academic papers makes this notable. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And what academic papers would these be? EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Look above at TheNautilus (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2008. They were just cited, and are valid mentions. - Nhprman 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • One of the refs, Journal of American History[7] only mention of wikinfo is "As Wikinfo (a fork, or spin-off, from Wikipedia) explains: "A wiki with so many hundreds of thousands of pages is bound to get some things wrong. The problem is, that because Wikipedia has become the 'AOL' [America Online] of the library and reference world, such false information and incorrect definitions of terms become multiple incompetences, propagated to millions of potential readers world-wide."" -that's not coverage of wikinfo, that's coverage of wikipedia. We could merge the article on wikinfo into one on wiki, or mention that this is its view at criticism of wikipedia. The same with the Ambiguity article [8] - wikinfo is only there as part of a discussion of the problems with wikipedia and as a contrast to it, and is only give a few lines, not even a paragraph, in a long article on wikipedia.[9] "and even in some encyclopedia projects such as for instance Wikinfo which precisely encourages diverse points of views for a same article." The other article TheNautilus mentioned we can't view. So this is the depth and number of sources for the subject.Sticky Parkin 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The last article linked to by TheNautilus does not contain a single mention of Wikinfo. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • There are a number of additional academic references returned in a Google Scholar search. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Goolge Books] as well. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
              • "Look at this raw websearch" is almost always unhelpful. Looking at your scholar search turns up stuff we've seen and stuff that only mentions the URL. The book search turns up one of the later, and one which might be useful if someone actually looked at a paper copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I looked through all of that prior to nominating this, per the guidelines set forth in DEL and BEFORE. I was hoping that I could improve it to the point where we could keep it, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. Everything is just too trivial. Celarnor Talk to me 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge some content into Internet encyclopedia project and redirect, also some content could be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia. Although I am unable to find substantial coverage about Wikinfo in reliable sources it is mentioned in coverage of wikipedia, wikis, and encyclopedia projects. Not enough to write an article about but enough to at least be mentioned in the relevant articles. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This has gone through AfD five times previously, and the result has been keep four times out of five (with the fifth time being no consensus -- and that wasn't even the last nomination). Note also that this appears to be part of a batch of nominations from the nominator, some of which seem pointy. Xihr (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Please note that this user doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. This is my first nomination ever. Those other two nominations are procedural nominations, not my own, and you should note that I !voted keep on both of them. Still, beyond NOTAGAIN, an argument to be avoided during XfDs, you haven't provided a keep rationale, let alone one that fits any speedy keep criteria, nor have you given us a reason why we should ignore notability guidelines and WEB in this case. Celarnor Talk to me 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Assume the assumption of good faith. One of your other AfDs was clearly absurd, and smelled of WP:POINT problems (and I wasn't the only one to sniff them). As for the reasoning, I gave it quite clearly. It's been decided four other times that it's notable. Repeatedly calling AfDs on articles that repeatedly pass AfDs is a waste of time and energy, and seems to fly in the face of consensus. The consensus is already that the article is worth of keeping. Xihr (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Consensus can change. To accuse Celarnor of WP:POINT violations when he is just completing a nomination started by someone who didnt know who to complete the nom is pretty bad faith of you. ViridaeTalk 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    You're right; I misunderstood the chain of events here leading up to the nomination, as well as the relationship between the other nominations he filed shortly thereafter (and still, the other AfD was positively bizarre). I apologize, Celarnor. As for your other remark, it's true that consensus can change, but for that argument to make sense, one would need to demonstrate what's different. The arguments being made by the deleters here are that the article isn't notable, not that it is no longer notable, or that the standards for notability have changed. Without demonstrating something has changed, repeated AfDs are just a license to repeat the process until you get your way. Xihr (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    It doesn't assert notability now. It never has. It never can with the current coverage, because there's just not enough sources available for it. If you can show me two pieces of non-trivial independent coverage about the subject, I'll withdraw the nomination right now. That would mean that the subject asserted notability per WEB and N. The problem is, there isn't any non-trivial independent of the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I'm really just not satisfied with the sourcing, and I very rarely say that. It just doesn't stand up to our general notability standards, though it may have (marginally) done so several months back when these standards were a bit more lenient. I think the procedural concerns raised by DGG and others are valid, but not that compelling in this case as the time gap (which I think is more important than the raw number of nominations) was substantial.
  • Delete. This is another example of an article that has existed for a long time despite failing to meet normal notability requirements merely because it is associated with a prominent Wikipedian. It's remarkable how things more notable than Wikinfo are often deleted despite having received substantial media attention, but people turn up to defend something like this. Everyking (talk) 07:21, 22 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.