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. --Coredesat 05:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijunior[edit]

Wikijunior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote but I believe Wikijunior especially lacks notability. A Google News archive search [1] only returns 5 hits, and only 1 of those seems to be from mainstream news (and it's mentioned, apparently, in an article about Web 2.0 only). I suggest that as a result Wikijunior fails WP:WEB and should be deleted. Computerjoe's talk 12:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Since when was a google news search used as a notability scale? Damn deletionists. Fosnez 14:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I was using a Google News Search to show that it failed, at least, the first point of WP:WEB. And WP:NPA :P Computerjoe's talk 15:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7, non-notable web content. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the speedy tag, it's clearly controversial and better discussed here at AfD. the wub "?!" 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Only on Wikipedia would you have people deciding whether to keep an article about a service brought to you by the same folks who brought you Wikipedia. That the administrators are letting the debate continue for several days is (a) a sign of how free the free encylopdia is, or (b) the Wikimedia Foundation asked for a measure of the average Wikipedian's intelligence. Is a readability of grade level 8 too high? Oh, gotta go... Scooby Doo is back on, and it's the one where a masked person is trying to scare people away. Mandsford 16:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Wikibooks. Wikijunior is a part of Wikibooks [2]. If and when it breaks out to a separate project, with its own notability, we can recreate. the wub "?!" 17:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources Corpx 19:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of reliable sources. If it weren't from the Wikimedia Foundation, we'd delete something like this on sight. --Huon 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - This hard-core criticism of Wikijunior is something that I find to be totally unfounded. I agree that there is a huge need to update and improve this article, and to cite actual sources to confirm just what this is all about. As far as redirecting Wikijunior to Wikibooks, I think that is a grave mistake. There are foundational roots for Wikijunior that can show this to be a completely different Wikimedia project, even if at the moment it happens to be hosted on Wikibooks. Wikijunior follows some very different policies from Wikibooks on a few issues, and has a different development group as well... even if many Wikibooks user are involved with its development as well. How it was founded and what has been going on with its development is something worthy of note well beyond a mere Wikiproject. --Robert Horning 15:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a speedy keep is a bit unrealistic considering the delete 'votes' here Also, I don't see how your article comments how Wikijunior is notable. Computerjoe's talk 16:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because the article about the topic is woefully inadequate about the subject doesn't make it non-notable. I would like to point out that Wikijunior is one of only a handful of registered trademarks owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikibooks, surprisingly, isn't one of them, although Wikipedia is). The domain http://www.wikijunior.org/ has been independently registered as a domain name (it currently redirect to the Wikijunior page on en.wikibooks) and a seperate project discussion page about Wikijunior exist not only on the "working" page on Wikibooks, but also on meta at meta:Wikijunior. I'm sorry these haven't been mentioned in the article, but I'm pointing this things out to show this isn't a mere Wikiproject running on Wikibooks, but has taken up bandwidth on Foundation-l and discussions of the WMF board itself. How many Wikiprojects can you name like that? There are other unique charactaristics which make this something much more distinguished and notable to certainly deserve a seperate article on Wikipedia. I'd also like to note that while my name does show up on edits of the current Wikijunior article, it is mainly grammar fixes and keeping it on my watch list to prevent vandalism... which I've reverted a couple of times. When this topic has come up about notability, my challenges to those raising the issue have been unanswered on the talk page of this article. I don't think it deserved to be made a AfD candidate without at least questioning the notability on the talk page in the first place. Hence my remark about a speedy keep. No attempt has been made by the detractors of this article or topic to engage with those who might be interested in developing this article to something more than it is right now. Furthermore, I think there is enough material to discuss this project, in a NPOV and not using original research (but using things like notes from WMF board meetings and such) to add enough material to this article making it a featured article. Certainly enough to blow away the 32K article length limit. --Robert Horning 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, even if it's just in mainstream media of "Web 2.0," it's still coverage. Italia^vivi 20:08, 29 August 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.