304:, 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 Knowledge space is fine with me, along with a redirect. Seeing the article at "Knowledge: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 Knowledge is notable. We might even save
342:
a
Knowledge 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 Knowledge. Anyway, why don't we just compromise and move the article to Knowledge space? Then we can sidestep all the abstruse arguments about notability, which so often trail off into subjective opinion and metaphysical distinctions.
134:. 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". --
355:... 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. --
238:, which doesn't even exist yet. Anyway, your suggested compromise of a move to Knowledge space seems workable. After all, the distinction between article space and Knowledge 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 "Knowledge:Wikinfo" at the top of an article, as long as the article is accurate and comprehensive.) I would only suggest that
152:. 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 Knowledge with a different point of view inevitably borrows some of Knowledge's own notability. I would note that we have articles on
168:. As for the possible move to Knowledge namespace, I wouldn't have any objection for all Knowledge-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 Knowledge space with items that look exactly like what they are: general-interest encyclopedia articles.
617:
160:, a planned fork of Knowledge 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 Knowledge namespace. I would reply that these articles also borrow their notability from the relationship to Knowledge, as do articles on criticism/parody sites like
326:
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
341:
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
683:
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.
325:
But there's been meaningful criticism of
Knowledge published by reliable sources, hence we have something to write the article on... so that article isn't simply notable because it's about Knowledge. I think you're missing the point... we include articles on a given topic because there's published,
268:
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
Knowledge.
179:
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 Knowledge with a different editorial approach has been widely noted and discussed on the web. So it's not just a case of
258:
if
Knowledge 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 Knowledge-related projects have somehow achieved enough notability on their own. Also, casual users should be re-directed to these articles
810:
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 Knowledge and associated projects, there's probably a
499:
unless notability is a) asserted and b) verified. Simple enough. If this wasn't connected with
Knowledge 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
101:. 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.
657:
from
Knowledge. 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)
70:, "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of 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
749:- 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
375:
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".
411:
on the third page of a Knowledge 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.
129:
I've found any AfD concerning a Knowledge 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
115:
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.
65:
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
389:
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 Knowledge: namespace. My proposal is we move it to
453:, 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.
823:, we don't just translate Knowledge importance to real-world (or encyclopedic) notability. It's very regrettable that few of the people contributing to this discussion are addressing this problem.
104:
Those wishing to argue that the article should be kept because Wikinfo is of significance to the Knowledge project or to (some of) its contributors, please consider: In the light of
330:, 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. --
52:
433:
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
200:, 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
192:
By extension of your argument, every fork, mirror or copy of Knowledge would be notable by way of "borrowing" notability. So how about I start an article on
93:. The prevailing argument then was something like that: Wikinfo is notable because it is a notable Knowledge fork. This is unpersuasive, because it involves
604:
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.
407:
Okay, move it to the mirrors and forks list in Knowledge space. A casual user will probably never find the material. But the search function is picking up
662:. 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
715:
664:
659:
90:
722:
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.
242:
wikipedia-related articles—which after all borrow their notability from the parent project, because almost nobody would ever have heard of
193:
49:
832:
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
780:
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.
850:
434:
408:
391:
737:
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.
17:
467:
899:. This is no less notable than it was when it survived the first AfD. It's notable enough to be included in Knowledge.--
112:. If the text is somehow relevant to our project (which it may well be), it should be moved to the Knowledge: namespace.
903:
891:
879:
857:
844:
827:
805:
793:
784:
760:
741:
726:
706:
688:
672:
645:
631:
620:
594:
579:
564:
539:
520:
508:
489:
474:
441:
416:
398:
380:
370:
359:
346:
334:
320:
277:
263:
220:
184:
172:
138:
120:
699:
586:
It's mentioned in one paragraph in a long story on Knowledge forks, which says that it's not managed to achieve a
918:
703:
517:
216:, their notability is not at issue here; we don't keep articles just because others have not (yet) been deleted.
36:
917:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
887:
per AxelBoldt above. Nothing new presented here to warrant re-examining this article for potential deletion.
289:
230:. To be honest, if you downloaded and started updating a complete copy of the Knowledge database, your effort
561:
572:
as this is an important part of history, as attested to by its write up in prominent German magazines, see
309:
798:
837:
836:
information and placed within Wiki's own internal information. I guess that means a Rename, perhaps to
386:
385:
I agree with what W.marsh and Sam Blanning said. I just would like to point out that just moving it to
772:
per consensus. It is a notable piece of history concerning Knowledge itself, and the significant user
293:
790:
505:
377:
738:
876:
356:
331:
274:
135:
816:
558:
94:
756:). Never before have I seen such a large number of editors have no regard for verifiability.
641:
please web guideline is just guideline wikinfo is notable historically and verifiable by heise
316:
because Knowledge is notable. There's another obvious candidate for a move to Knowledge space.
255:
209:
161:
74:. In fact, it has no non-primary sources of any kind, making it also subject to deletion under
900:
612:
461:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
777:
654:
773:
757:
669:
438:
413:
367:
343:
317:
260:
181:
169:
841:
802:
781:
854:
824:
723:
685:
628:
627:
Again, please: How exactly is it notable, and what are your reliable sources for this?
591:
536:
486:
395:
305:
301:
217:
117:
485:
are there, as required by WP:WEB, to attest that it is "very important historically"?
297:
888:
820:
719:
680:
550:
528:
131:
105:
98:
67:
573:
753:
642:
605:
576:
554:
532:
482:
454:
352:
213:
165:
83:
75:
71:
875:. While assuming good faith... there is no reason for this second nomination. --
425:. Often it's the acknowledgment tag: "This article incorporates material from the
789:
How is Fred Bauder significant? We don't have an article on him, for starters. --
527:
Again, could you please elaborate on this? What specific notability criterium of
284:
As I said, I was surprised by the number of web comments I found on Wikinfo. See
259:
when they type "Wikitruth" or "Wikinfo" into the box on the main Knowledge page.
734:
247:
235:
205:
157:
79:
285:
273:
but not really to anyone not in the community, which is textbook bias. --
616:
430:
426:
422:
251:
243:
201:
153:
58:
668:. This AfD should be thrown out at once and the nominator sanctioned.
108:, this should not be a consideration when assessing the notability of
156:, a predecessor to Knowledge which doesn't even exist any more, and
421:
One more point: over a hundred articles in the main space link to
911:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
698:
per my belief that this is a historically important wiki. The
196:? Humor aside, obviously any subject must have some notability
653:
There seems to be a campaign to remove both this article and
394:, where the appropriate formatting changes can then be made.
308:
some heartburn. As an aside, I recently did a lot of work on
269:
These basically ammount to arguments that Wikinfo is notable
553:
material masquerading as encyclopedic content. Recreate iff
501:
194:
the copy of the Knowledge database I downloaded today
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
549:per Sam Blanning. No independent refs makes this
535:are there, as required by WP:WEB, to back it up?
180:the article borrowing notability from Knowledge.
89:This situation has not been alleviated since the
921:). No further edits should be made to this page.
851:Knowledge:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#Wikinfo (wiki)
435:Knowledge:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#Wikinfo (wiki)
392:Knowledge:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#Wikinfo (wiki)
516:- Notable enough in the eye of this beholder.
8:
97:and has no bearing on the requirements of
853:. I've proposed to move it there, above.
481:Could you please elaborate on this? What
366:Okay, we agree! Let's move the article.
702:is a guideline, not a suicide pact.
531:do you think Wikinfo meets, and what
437:once the information is moved there.
7:
849:OK, but it has a place already, at
24:
409:Knowledge:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz
91:first AfD discussion in July 2006
615:
590:number of active contributors.
429:article", or "Adapted from the
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
904:18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
892:19:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
880:18:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
858:22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
845:17:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
828:05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
806:02:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
794:22:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
785:17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
761:14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
742:09:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
727:03:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
707:23:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
689:11:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
673:10:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
646:18:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
632:17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
621:17:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
595:17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
580:16:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
565:10:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
540:06:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
521:04:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
509:01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
490:06:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
475:22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
442:13:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
417:09:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
399:06:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
381:01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
371:00:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
360:00:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
347:00:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
335:00:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
321:00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
312:, an article which is notable
278:22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
264:21:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
221:21:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
185:20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
173:20:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
139:20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
121:20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
53:20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
82:as applied concurrently with
799:Knowledge:Arbitrators#Active
533:reliable third-party sources
483:reliable third-party sources
938:
700:Knowledge:Notability (web)
914:Please do not modify it.
811:reason we don't have an
718:was: failure to fulfill
351:Blogs and so on are not
32:Please do not modify it.
504:the website itself. --
310:Criticism of Knowledge
714:The consensus of the
234:be more notable than
813:encyclopedia article
716:first AfD discussion
518:Georgewilliamherbert
110:encyclopedic content
819:- it's because per
557:become available.
95:circular reasoning
838:Knowledge:Wikinfo
473:
387:Knowledge:Wikinfo
929:
916:
774:User:Fred Bauder
754:reliable sources
619:
610:
457:
353:reliable sources
72:reliable sources
61:(2nd nomination)
34:
937:
936:
932:
931:
930:
928:
927:
926:
925:
919:deletion review
912:
801:. Significant.
606:
63:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
935:
933:
924:
923:
907:
906:
894:
882:
877:EngineerScotty
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
763:
744:
729:
709:
692:
691:
676:
675:
648:
635:
634:
624:
623:
598:
597:
583:
582:
567:
559:Angus McLellan
543:
542:
524:
523:
511:
493:
492:
478:
477:
447:
446:
445:
444:
419:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
364:
363:
362:
339:
338:
337:
306:Angela Beesley
282:
281:
280:
224:
223:
176:
175:
142:
141:
62:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
934:
922:
920:
915:
909:
908:
905:
902:
898:
895:
893:
890:
886:
883:
881:
878:
874:
871:
859:
856:
852:
848:
847:
846:
843:
839:
835:
831:
830:
829:
826:
822:
818:
814:
809:
808:
807:
804:
800:
797:
796:
795:
792:
788:
787:
786:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
764:
762:
759:
755:
752:
748:
745:
743:
740:
736:
733:
730:
728:
725:
721:
717:
713:
710:
708:
705:
701:
697:
694:
693:
690:
687:
682:
678:
677:
674:
671:
667:
666:
661:
656:
652:
649:
647:
644:
640:
637:
636:
633:
630:
626:
625:
622:
618:
614:
611:
609:
603:
600:
599:
596:
593:
589:
585:
584:
581:
578:
574:
571:
568:
566:
563:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
544:
541:
538:
534:
530:
526:
525:
522:
519:
515:
512:
510:
507:
503:
498:
495:
494:
491:
488:
484:
480:
479:
476:
472:
469:
468:contributions
466:
463:
460:
456:
452:
449:
448:
443:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
418:
415:
410:
406:
400:
397:
393:
388:
384:
383:
382:
379:
374:
373:
372:
369:
365:
361:
358:
354:
350:
349:
348:
345:
340:
336:
333:
329:
324:
323:
322:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
272:
267:
266:
265:
262:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
225:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
187:
186:
183:
178:
177:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
144:
143:
140:
137:
133:
128:
125:
124:
123:
122:
119:
113:
111:
107:
102:
100:
96:
92:
87:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
913:
910:
901:Bibliophylax
896:
884:
872:
833:
812:
791:Sam Blanning
769:
765:
750:
746:
731:
711:
695:
679:Please read
665:obvious keep
663:
650:
638:
607:
601:
588:double-digit
587:
569:
546:
513:
506:Sam Blanning
496:
470:
464:
458:
450:
378:Sam Blanning
327:
313:
270:
239:
231:
227:
214:Uncyclopedia
197:
189:
166:Uncyclopedia
149:
145:
126:
114:
109:
103:
88:
64:
45:
43:
31:
28:
817:Fred Bauder
758:Wickethewok
735:Citizendium
704:Yamaguchi先生
670:Metaspheres
651:Strong keep
439:Casey Abell
414:Casey Abell
368:Casey Abell
344:Casey Abell
318:Casey Abell
261:Casey Abell
248:Citizendium
236:Citizendium
206:Citizendium
182:Casey Abell
170:Casey Abell
158:Citizendium
842:Inmatarian
834:Real World
803:Inmatarian
782:Inmatarian
198:of its own
855:Sandstein
825:Sandstein
739:Geedubber
724:AxelBoldt
686:Sandstein
629:Sandstein
592:Sandstein
537:Sandstein
487:Sandstein
396:Sandstein
256:Wikitruth
218:Sandstein
210:Wikitruth
162:Wikitruth
118:Sandstein
889:Hiddekel
190:Comment:
778:GetWiki
655:GetWiki
643:Yuckfoo
608:ALKIVAR
577:AaronSw
502:created
455:Tlogmer
431:Wikinfo
427:Wikinfo
423:Wikinfo
357:W.marsh
332:W.marsh
275:W.marsh
252:Wikinfo
244:Nupedia
228:Comment
202:Nupedia
154:Nupedia
136:W.marsh
59:Wikinfo
821:WP:ASR
747:Delete
720:WP:WEB
681:WP:AGF
562:(Talk)
551:WP:ADS
547:Delete
529:WP:WEB
497:Delete
314:solely
300:, and
132:WP:WEB
127:Delete
106:WP:ASR
99:WP:WEB
68:WP:WEB
770:Merge
712:Keep.
555:WP:RS
271:to us
232:would
84:WP:RS
76:WP:OR
16:<
897:Keep
885:Keep
873:Keep
766:Keep
732:Keep
696:Keep
639:keep
602:Keep
570:Keep
514:Keep
462:talk
451:Keep
328:Lost
302:here
298:here
294:here
290:here
286:here
212:and
164:and
150:Move
146:Keep
80:WP:V
46:keep
815:on
768:or
751:not
660:AfD
254:or
250:or
246:or
240:all
148:or
48:.
840:.
776:.
575:.
376:--
296:,
292:,
288:,
208:,
204:,
86:.
613:™
471:)
465:/
459:(
78:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.