| Revision as of 14:18, 22 December 2006 editMichaelas10 (talk | contribs)11,793 editsm →[]: - Grammar← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:50, 22 December 2006 edit undoTaxwoman (talk | contribs)895 edits →[]: KeepNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| **''The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.'' - There is , but again, it is not a well-known newspaper, publisher or broadcaster. | **''The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.'' - There is , but again, it is not a well-known newspaper, publisher or broadcaster. | ||
| **The ]-based votes don't show notability, but rather disturb Misplaced Pages's deletion process. '''<span style="background:#000">] ]</span>''' 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | **The ]-based votes don't show notability, but rather disturb Misplaced Pages's deletion process. '''<span style="background:#000">] ]</span>''' 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' People keep citing ], but this was rejected as policy. Nobody can produce any policy reason for deleting this article, and therefore the clear decision taken recently to keep must stand.--] 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:50, 22 December 2006
Wipipedia
- Previous AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia
del, nonnotabke wiki. Since its first momination the article failed to addresss the concerns of notability and verifiability. `'mikkanarxi 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Reading the first debate, I'm leaning towards delete. The concerns were not addressed. Some had an WP:ILIKEIT stance, some wanted to keep the article because "WP:WEB is not policy, so it has no relevance". You'll have to do better than that. Also, whether the "specialist wikis" thrive is not really our business. Punkmorten 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this site meets WP:WEB. Yes, it's not policy, but there's a reason it's around, and it's not to be contravened by a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT-based votes. --Kinu /c 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:WEB since I can't find any coverage by reliable sources, awards won or anything else notable. Jayden54 19:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. I believe that the previous AfD was completely unfair, and people were !voting keep because of the matter of the subject itself, while completely ignoring WP:WEB. This isn't notable, period. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Firstly, WP:Web is not policy. It is inadmissible to delete something because of guidelines. What policy does it fail to meet? Secondly, this is not a vote; it is a debate. The closing admin looked at the debate and decided not to delete, so the stuff about "a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT-based votes" is irrelevant.--Brownlee 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Which WP:WEB criteria doesn't it meet?
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - All I could find through Google is two short summaries of the website from two other websites: podcastdirectory.com and the-iron-gate.com. These are not, however, published works or media re-prints.
- The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. - Nope.
- The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. - There is informedconsent.co.uk, but again, it is not a well-known newspaper, publisher or broadcaster.
- The WP:ILIKEIT-based votes don't show notability, but rather disturb Misplaced Pages's deletion process. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep People keep citing WP:WEB, but this was rejected as policy. Nobody can produce any policy reason for deleting this article, and therefore the clear decision taken recently to keep must stand.--Taxwoman 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)