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. See also the closing statement by Xoloz of the most recent Wikinfo AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination), which I feel is closely related. W.marsh 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiChristian[edit]

Article on same topic was prodded back in July. Only cites one independent source, the wikimedia list of largest wikis. Is being the 63rd largest wiki notable? I don't think so, and I'm not sure citing wikimedia falls under WP:RS. There is no other independent media coverage cited. No awards or recognitions. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it fails WP:WEB. Notable idea, and great and all, but not notable by standards here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Marshall McLuhan once said, the medium is the message. Whether you realize it or not, you're living in the Golden Age of Wiki, an informational system that came about only after the technology was in place. Arguably, all of the offshoots of the original concept --- good, bad and ugly --- are notable without somebody taking a popularity survey. There's a lot more data storage involved in creating and maintaining a wiki- than posting a personal webpage, and their notablility grows in time. We're living through history and 90 percent of you aren't aware of it. Mandsford 01:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so what does this explanation of your !vote have to do with our standards? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Mansford votes to keep it, I think I'm going to die of not-surprise. Not one thing he said addresses notability.JJJ999 05:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your delete rationale consists solely of an ad hominem attack on another contributor and is exceedingly unhelpful. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, Jembot, don't die on account of me... :P Mandsford 15:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I think this is a valid article. There are plenty of other wikis (see List of wikis) that exist including A Million Penguins, WikiFur, International Music Score Library Project, Lostpedia, LyricWiki, Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia, ZineWiki, Wikia, Wiktionary, Scholarpedia, Wikibooks and so the list continues. So, why should the WikiChristian article be deleted? If it should, then for consistency, so should all of the others. --Graham Grove 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally understood that "other crap exists" shouldn't be a valid deletion argument. I personally do not have control over all of wikipedia content, and I suggest that each article be discusses on it's own merit individually and in isolation. Saying that other wiki articles exist does not address my WP:WEB notability concerns regarding this specific article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, the other articles aren't crap, so good articles can indeed be written about notable wikis. This one is sufficiently well established to keep. DGG (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That other crap should go too, and if this is kept it is a condemnation of wikipedia. The people in favour have not one iota of merit to their arguments, they just like/are involved in the self aggrandising content. Ugh.JJJ999 05:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well some of those cited articles DO cite sources, and DO establish notability. I wouldn't mind keeping this article at all if it was at the same level as some of those other ones. That said, just because it is possible to write an article about a notable wiki and bring it up to wikipedia standards does not mean EVERY wiki qualifies. Like I said, each wiki needs to be examined individually, and no one has addressed the notability and sourcing issues of THIS particular wiki. If other users believe this article can be brought up to the same caliber as Lostpedia, which sites 25 sources, that sites multiple, independent sources such as businessweek.com, the St. Petersburg Times, wired.com, and ABC.com, has won awards like the Hugo Cup, been featured on Sci-Fi.com, etc, then I urge these editors to quickly mention the awards this wiki has won, and mention the multiple independent sources that confirm the notability of this wiki. If not, this individual wiki does not meet WP:WEB and should be deleted. Not every wiki is equal in notability.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of reliable third party sources about this website. If others have the same problem they may be nominated for deletion as well. Yamaguchi先生 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uinless independent reliable sources establishing notability per WP:WEB are provided. Nuttah68 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Biggest of its type, which alone makes it notable. Wikimedia is a WP:RS for stats. Bearian 23:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable and significant third party sources, a stats page doesn't cut it. So far as I can tell, none of the keep arguments are based in policy at all, and some of them practically quote arguments to avoid. RFerreira 06:33, 23 October 2007 (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.