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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real opinion on the notability or other merits (or lack thereof) of this project, although "47 contributors" is not exactly indicative of a high notability. This renomination is motivated by guideline compliance: per WP:WEB, "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of [the notability] criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section". This article neither formulates a claim to notability (valid per WP:WEB or otherwise), nor does it back up any such claim with reliable sources. In fact, it has no non-primary sources of any kind, making it also subject to deletion under WP:OR/WP:V as applied concurrently with WP:RS.

This situation has not been alleviated since the first AfD discussion in July 2006. The prevailing argument then was something like that: Wikinfo is notable because it is a notable Wikipedia fork. This is unpersuasive, because it involves circular reasoning and has no bearing on the requirements of WP:WEB. It was also argued that WP:WEB doesn't apply because Wikinfo is "notable not as a website, but as an open source project fork of a very notable project". This also fails to persuade, because whatever its content or subject, Wikinfo is still a website and as such subject to WP:WEB.

Those wishing to argue that the article should be kept because Wikinfo is of significance to the Wikipedia project or to (some of) its contributors, please consider: In the light of WP:ASR, this should not be a consideration when assessing the notability of encyclopedic content. If the text is somehow relevant to our project (which it may well be), it should be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace.

Since the first nomination seems to have been initiated by a vandal's sockpuppet, I should probably also mention that I am not she or he, and have not been in any way involved with this article until reading it by chance, today. Sandstein 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've found any AfD concerning a Wikipedia fork or other Wikimedia project inherently gets a lot "Of course it's notable, I've heard of it!" votes, which seem obviously biased, and this site is another one that simply does not seem to meet WP:WEB. I encourage people to remember that we don't keep articles simply because we can relate to the subject, but because they meet established and agreed upon inclusion guidelines. Please present evidence that Wikinfo has recieved meaningful third party coverage. Blurbs and mentions here and there really do not an article make, and all I've found in searching 2 good academic search engines are a small number of blurbs that say no more than "Wikinfo is a fork of WP". --W.marsh 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move. As a contributor to the article, I have an obvious conflict of interest, and I appreciate the nominator's notification to me about the AfD. But the circularity counter-argument honestly doesn't persuade me. Fred Bauder's Wikinfo effort to fork from Wikipedia with a different point of view inevitably borrows some of Wikipedia's own notability. I would note that we have articles on Nupedia, a predecessor to Wikipedia which doesn't even exist any more, and Citizendium, a planned fork of Wikipedia that doesn't even exist yet. Of course, the nominator might argue that we should get rid of those articles as well, or move them to the Wikipedia namespace. I would reply that these articles also borrow their notability from the relationship to Wikipedia, as do articles on criticism/parody sites like Wikitruth and Uncyclopedia. As for the possible move to Wikipedia namespace, I wouldn't have any objection for all Wikipedia-related articles, as long as a newbie coming to the encyclopedia was directed to the article after simply typing Wikinfo into the box. But this might start overloading Wikipedia space with items that look exactly like what they are: general-interest encyclopedia articles. Casey Abell 20:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-conflict...While I know that Google searches get discounted in these debates, I was rather surprised to see the size of Wikinfo's search footprint. This effort to fork from Wikipedia with a different editorial approach has been widely noted and discussed on the web. So it's not just a case of the article borrowing notability from Wikipedia. Casey Abell 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: By extension of your argument, every fork, mirror or copy of Wikipedia would be notable by way of "borrowing" notability. So how about I start an article on the copy of the Wikipedia database I downloaded today? Humor aside, obviously any subject must have some notability of its own, which is precisely what is utterly non-apparent in this case (but maybe you could remedy that by adding these web sources you mention to the article?). As to Nupedia, Citizendium, Wikitruth and Uncyclopedia, their notability is not at issue here; we don't keep articles just because others have not (yet) been deleted. Sandstein 21:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be honest, if you downloaded and started updating a complete copy of the Wikipedia database, your effort would be more notable than Citizendium, which doesn't even exist yet. Anyway, your suggested compromise of a move to Wikipedia space seems workable. After all, the distinction between article space and Wikipedia space means nothing to most casual users of the encyclopedia. (Truth to tell, it doesn't mean much to me. I really don't care if I see "Wikinfo" or "Wikipedia:Wikinfo" at the top of an article, as long as the article is accurate and comprehensive.) I would only suggest that all wikipedia-related articles—which after all borrow their notability from the parent project, because almost nobody would ever have heard of Nupedia or Citizendium or Wikinfo or Wikitruth if Wikipedia weren't such a big presence on the Web—also be moved for consistency's sake. Otherwise, we get into endless hair-splitting exercises as to which Wikipedia-related projects have somehow achieved enough notability on their own. Also, casual users should be re-directed to these articles when they type "Wikitruth" or "Wikinfo" into the box on the main Wikipedia page. Casey Abell 21:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has adressed whether there's been third party coverage by reliable sources. Notability is only "inherited" if people care enough to write about a site because of it's relationship to a notable site, e.g. some in the media wrote about WikiTruth because of it's relationship to Wikipedia. These basically ammount to arguments that Wikinfo is notable to us but not really to anyone not in the community, which is textbook bias. --W.marsh 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I was surprised by the number of web comments I found on Wikinfo. See here, here, here, here, and here, for instance. I'll admit most of these are brief mentions that only define the site, quote its mission, and offer a few comments. But it's not like the site has gone unnoticed. Once again, the nominator's proposed compromise of a move to Wikipedia space is fine with me, along with a redirect. Seeing the article at "Wikipedia:Wikinfo" instead of just plain "Wikinfo" wouldn't bother me at all. Beyond Wikinfo, I think we might avoid a lot of storm and stress if we did similar moves on many other articles which are only notable because Wikipedia is notable. We might even save Angela Beesley some heartburn. As an aside, I recently did a lot of work on Criticism of Wikipedia, an article which is notable solely because Wikipedia is notable. There's another obvious candidate for a move to Wikipedia space. Casey Abell 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there's been meaningful criticism of Wikipedia published by reliable sources, hence we have something to write the article on... so that article isn't simply notable because it's about Wikipedia. I think you're missing the point... we include articles on a given topic because there's published, reliable information to use... not because we like the topic, or personally feel it's important, and so on. Keeping or deleting articles based solely on how important something is to us is inherently going to lead to bias. Most websites are somehow tied to something that's notable (e.g. a forum for fans of the TV Show Lost, or a chat room discussing the C++ programming language), the existance of many of these sites has probably mentioned on a blog or two, but that doesn't mean they get articles. --W.marsh 00:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am missing the point, because there's plenty of published, reliable information on Wikinfo. I just reread the article, and it all looks like reliable, published information to me. I mean, we're not talking about a hoax or an unknown subject here. Whatever anybody may think of Fred Bauder as a Wikipedia admin and arbcom member, I don't think he's running a spurious or unverifiable site. If some of the third-party comments are to be believed—and I see no reason why they shouldn't be trusted as honest expressions of opinion, whether I agree with the opinions or not—some observers think Wikinfo might have a thing or three to teach Wikipedia. Anyway, why don't we just compromise and move the article to Wikipedia space? Then we can sidestep all the abstruse arguments about notability, which so often trail off into subjective opinion and metaphysical distinctions. Casey Abell 00:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and so on are not reliable sources... the only thing I've found published in anything other than random websites have just been blurbs. I've never encountered Mr. Bauder or Wikinfo (beyond just seeing his work on ArbCom, which incidently I appreciate) so I am not attacking the site or him or anything, merely trying to uniformly apply concepts of article inclusion standards, as I've done before with other articles. As for the move, I don't really oppose that if people want it. --W.marsh 00:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we agree! Let's move the article. Casey Abell 00:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your bolded opinion, then? If we're going to move the article to projectspace, we're going to delete the page in articlespace, as we don't keep cross-namespace redirects. Your current post says "Keep or move" which amounts to "Keep or delete". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what W.marsh and Sam Blanning said. I just would like to point out that just moving it to Wikipedia:Wikinfo isn't going to help very much, especially because of the no-cross-namespace-redirect thing, but also because we ought to find it some useful place in the context of the Wikipedia: namespace. My proposal is we move it to Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#Wikinfo (wiki), where the appropriate formatting changes can then be made. Sandstein 06:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, move it to the mirrors and forks list in Wikipedia space. A casual user will probably never find the material. But the search function is picking up Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz on the third page of a Wikipedia space search for "Wikinfo", so a determined user will be able to find the information. I'm not sure why this stuff has to be tucked into such an out-of-the-way corner, but I don't object to the proposed move. Casey Abell 09:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more point: over a hundred articles in the main space link to Wikinfo. Often it's the acknowledgment tag: "This article incorporates material from the Wikinfo article", or "Adapted from the Wikinfo article." We probably don't want all those links going red, which would look pretty strange in acknowledgement blurbs. So we'll have to make sure there's a link to Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#Wikinfo (wiki) once the information is moved there. Casey Abell 13:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, please. Wikinfo is the first and so far only working english-language fork of wikipedia. It's very important historically, even if it hasn't taken off; I've linked to this article several times. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on this? What reliable third-party sources are there, as required by WP:WEB, to attest that it is "very important historically"? Sandstein 06:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless notability is a) asserted and b) verified. Simple enough. If this wasn't connected with Wikipedia in some way, then on current evidence this would probably be a snowball delete, like the myriad other websites with no third-party attention and whose articles were created by the people who created the website itself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable enough in the eye of this beholder. Georgewilliamherbert 04:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, could you please elaborate on this? What specific notability criterium of WP:WEB do you think Wikinfo meets, and what reliable third-party sources are there, as required by WP:WEB, to back it up? Sandstein 06:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sam Blanning. No independent refs makes this WP:ADS material masquerading as encyclopedic content. Recreate iff WP:RS become available. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is an important part of history, as attested to by its write up in prominent German magazines, see [1]. AaronSw 16:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in one paragraph in a long story on Wikipedia forks, which says that it's not managed to achieve a double-digit number of active contributors. Sandstein 17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable fork of the wiki project with a very very large web footprint. Certainly of more value than say Uncyclopedia or Wikitruth... I think this belongs.  ALKIVAR™ 17:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please: How exactly is it notable, and what are your reliable sources for this? Sandstein 17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please web guideline is just guideline wikinfo is notable historically and verifiable by heise Yuckfoo 18:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep There seems to be a campaign to remove both this article and GetWiki from Wikipedia. I say "campaign" because both these articles have been nominated at around the same time. I believe the reasons are obvious, but I will leave it to others to figure for themselves why this is happening. I have explained my reasons for keeping at the other (GetWiki) AfD. IMHO, these actions have been made in extremely bad faith as this particular article was nominated just a number of weeks ago and the result was an obvious keep. This AfD should be thrown out at once and the nominator sanctioned. Metaspheres 10:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF before making any such accusations, thank you. What happened is that I read the GetWiki AfD, clicked on the Wikinfo link someone provided there, noticed that it failed WP:WEB and decided to nominate it for deletion also. No sinister conspiracy against you here, whoever you may be, I'm sorry to say. Sandstein 11:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my belief that this is a historically important wiki. The Wikipedia:Notability (web) is a guideline, not a suicide pact. Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The consensus of the first AfD discussion was: failure to fulfill WP:WEB is not relevant, as this article is not primarily about a website but about an important fork of an important project. This has not changed. AxelBoldt 03:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Citizendium isn't even up and running yet, but it has its own page. It is only fair the Wikinfo --a project that is actually active-- stays. Geedubber 09:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are no reliable sources for this. Just because you've heard of something doesn't mean it meets the requirements for verifiability and reliable sources. Until someone provides an outside source, I don't see how this can be kept (no, blogs and trivial links are not reliable sources). Never before have I seen such a large number of editors have no regard for verifiability. Wickethewok 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge per consensus. It is a notable piece of history concerning Wikipedia itself, and the significant user User:Fred Bauder. GetWiki is also up for AFD, which is connected to this history, and having the two as one article would still preserve this piece of history. Inmatarian 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  How is Fred Bauder significant? We don't have an article on him, for starters. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Arbitrators#Active. Significant. Inmatarian 02:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  And that's the whole problem with this AfD - the people voting "keep" are confusing notability within the Wikimedia projects with actual, real-world notability. While I won't dispute the notability of Fred Bauder or Wikinfo in the context of Wikipedia and associated projects, there's probably a reason we don't have an encyclopedia article on Fred Bauder - it's because per WP:ASR, we don't just translate Wikipedia importance to real-world (or encyclopedic) notability. It's very regrettable that few of the people contributing to this discussion are addressing this problem. Sandstein 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, then we agree that it's an important piece of Wiki's own history and should be kept, just that it needs to be seperated from Real World information and placed within Wiki's own internal information. I guess that means a Rename, perhaps to Wikipedia:Wikinfo. Inmatarian 17:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, but it has a place already, at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#Wikinfo (wiki). I've proposed to move it there, above. Sandstein 22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While assuming good faith... there is no reason for this second nomination. --EngineerScotty 18:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AxelBoldt above. Nothing new presented here to warrant re-examining this article for potential deletion. Hiddekel 19:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is no less notable than it was when it survived the first AfD. It's notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.--Bibliophylax 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.