Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo

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 an obvious keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinfo

I can't find any notable sources in the article. FurryiamIAM 17:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC) To explain better: it fails notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR. Basically wikipedia does not keep articles just because they have a website. Wikipedia requires a second party source like a newspaper article (please see those guideline links, it has to fullfill them). FurryiamIAM 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Nominator blocked as sock of Hardvice, voted delete below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No one has voted after a day, so I will. FurryiamIAM 05:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Hardvice 12:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I never understood how this got into Wikipedia, especially when the page was created by the owner of the site. I made a copy of the page here Gerard Foley 13:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and vanity. Anomo 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable fork of Wikipedia BrokenSegue 16:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    WP:WEB gives three ways in which a website is notable. Can I ask which one Wikinfo satisfies? Thanks, Gerard Foley 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    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)). BrokenSegue 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, on a rather unique basis. NPOV is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, but also one of the most controversial and hardest to fulfill; it causes most of our really serious conflicts. Wikinfo is the best known attempt to try an alternate approach, "sympathetic point of view", and see if it can be equally useful to the public while easier to fulfill by the editors. Anyone who doesn't think NPOV can ever really be achieved is welcome to try to do a better job there. It's in every way a Wikipedia-friendly project, run by one of the longest serving members of our WP:ARBCOM. Also note the fact that it was nominated by a twice-voting sockpupeteer, who may have his own reasons to want to get back at the arbcom. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transfer to Wikipediaspace the nomination seems to be in bad faith, but there aren't actually any reliable sources for this that I could find, making it basically the same as a self-reference. It's a glimpse into the sausage factory, and especially when this is the case it absolutely needs to follow WP:V requirements. That said, I could see this coming in useful, so I'd suggest that it get moved to the Wikipedia namespace until the world outside Wikis starts to report on it. Ziggurat 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BrokenSegue vovkav 13:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BrokenSegue --Vovanium 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that a Wikipedia article doesn't agree with policy isn't grounds for deleting it, but for improving it. Despite the lack of sources, this article covers a notable item, and it deserves a chance to grow. Thesocialistesq 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I would say that a lack of sources is the most important grounds for deleting an article. I had a look around, incidentally, and could not find any externally reliable sources, so I don't think improvement to bring it in line with policy is possible. I'd be delighted to be proved otherwise, but the burden of evidence is really on those wishing to keep it. Ziggurat 22:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable Wikipedia fork, nominated for deletion by way of sockpuppet. Yamaguchi先生 02:19, 28 July 2006 (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.