504:. Arguments about notability have been made before, and consensus was that Wikinfo is notable as functioning fork of Knowledge. Third-party sources have been provided and rejecting them as "trivial" is unconvincing, the article is accurate and complete, and there's no reason to reject the consensus achieved in many prior AfD's.
48:. There is reasonable disagreement regarding the question of whether reliable sources are provided, and whether notability conferred by forking from Knowledge constitutes some sort of self-reference and/or conflict of interest. However, it is clear that consensus to delete will not emerge from this discussion; although
460:
Above two comments show what I'm talking about perfectly. Notable because it's a fork of
Knowledge (Being a fork of Knowledge is NOT a notability criteria. If it is only notable because it's a fork of Knowledge, that would be a grounds to merge it to
469:
keep it), "Keep, it was already nominated" votes, which is not a valid reason to keep an article, and "Keep, bad faith nom". This has nothing to do with
Wikinfo being a fork of Knowledge, or me 'not liking rival encyclopedias' (I loathe
582:
A fork of a very well known project can be notable if t here are sources to show it's well known, and there are. Just barely, but sufficient. Paid sources are acceptable. Paid external links, no, but as sources, sure.
751:
were this a random forum, or worse yet, a site critical of
Knowledge, it would probably be speedy deleted. Keeping it around just has always seemed like bias, given the lack of sourcing... and we need to counter bias.
420:
per previous nominations and role in the history of
Knowledge (one of the first and longest-functioning fork). I frankly don't see the value of nominating an article of this nature for deletion for the 5th time.
52:, the extensive record of past nominations concerning precisely the same questions suggests that the community's feelings on this article are unlikely to shift. Further nominations are discouraged, absent
729:
Exactly. If OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIAS are not notable, how in the world is an UNOFFICIAL FORK OF WIKIPEDIA? If notability IS INHERITED, then WIkimedia projects would BY DEFAULT always be notable --
618:
itself on the site, just a very trivial "this is what someone else says" reference, which could've come from any of our criticizing websites. Again, there are no sources that show that
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
86:
166:
532:
Wikinfo, the main article (what people can actually see about it), and is only used to back up the statement "They use SPOV instead of NPOV" 2- The second source is from this
324:
that makes me think that people are only voting keep because they are an offshoot of ourselves. If being an offshoot of
Knowledge is the only reason they are mentioned,
638:
notability clause that states that forks of well known projects are notable-- and the fact that Linux
Distribution articles are ever deleted is proof of this. They are
777:
433:- per agruments that was written in previous nominations. 5th nomination? I see that some editors of Knowledge only don´t like rival encyclopedias. --
81:
278:
thing (other than our existing sources) which, and I'm not even sure if it's a reliable source, given it's in German, again only mentions
240:
While this can be a legitimate reason to close an AFD, it's not a valid reason to keep an article that just doesn't meet our policies.
484:
As well-- just because it was nominated before doesn't mean that consensus will change, or even that consensus was correct. Again,
520:
any third party sources that give
Wikinfo more than a trivial mention, would you care to back up your statement? Without actually
552:, and only used to back up the statement "SPOV not NPOV". Everything else is derived directly from their site, with some things
184:
This is a huge example of bias toward ourselves. If we're going by the size of a Wiki and it's ability to function, instead of
17:
212:
given it's own article, per WP:N, which states that the notability of something applies to articles subject, but not content.
196:. You'd think from the statistics alone that Wikinfo is less notable than the other one, yet the other one has been deleted
642:
forks and derivative works of the Linux kernel and other Linux distros, but many of them are still deleted. In addition,
297:
787:
767:
756:
737:
724:
702:
594:
572:
508:
496:
450:
437:
425:
412:
396:
384:
359:
64:
139:
134:
143:
713:
I do not see how the official/unofficial distinction has the least thing to do with notability one way or another.
803:
524:, there's absolutely no proof one exists like you claim they do. And actually, the article is very poor, there's
173:
Wikinfo has previously been nominated for deletion four times, and honestly in every one of them I don't see any
36:
560:
case made that they're notable as an offshoot, just "oh well they are so there", which sounds suspiciously like
802:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
126:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
443:
753:
447:
189:
528:
external sources, used as such: 1- A source that requires the user to log in, that might not even
266:. This almost certainly qualifies it as a "trivial mention" at best. A quick look at google shows
683:
561:
289:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
505:
422:
293:
372:
that actually deal with the subject (trivial mention). Beyond that, it certainly fails
488:
has been able to find any reliable sources that give it more than a trivial mention. --
288:
I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that this page is being kept for anything but
720:
590:
481:
476:
471:
405:
381:
377:
373:
348:
317:
313:
185:
49:
331:, and watch it get worked out of that article. I'd be more than happy to keep this
434:
369:
130:
193:
160:
784:
764:
732:
697:
567:
491:
409:
393:
354:
61:
603:
462:
335:
it had more than trivial mentions, or mention at all in the press. However,
327:
188:, certainly we would have articles on many more Wikis than we do. Compare
715:
585:
251:
122:
70:
624:
four keep votes have not found a single source that even suggests that
270:, which there almost certainly would be. A Google News search returns
544:, only to really again say "It's a fork". 3- A German source that
474:, but they are notable), and everything to do with them not being
312:
that makes me think this article is a "Special Case" that gets to
644:
not even official
Wikimedia project Wikipedias are always notable
177:
to notability. The only arguments I see on the side of keep are:
796:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
533:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
197:
156:
152:
148:
606:(which needs to be removed), it only mentions Wikinfo
392:per lack of significant coverage from this wiki.
202:
It's a fork of an existing project which is notable
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
274:results, and a Google scholar search returns only
254:that mention it at all, and the name only appears
682:, not to mention the large number of redlinks on
602:Looking at the publication's own article, we see
442:Then why did we feature an article on by far our
304:has red links to fairly major topics, as well as
806:). No further edits should be made to this page.
112:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (7th nomination)
107:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)
102:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination)
97:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th nomination)
92:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination)
87:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination)
8:
268:no reliable sources in the first five pages
343:for a total lack of reliable sources, or
776:: This debate has been included in the
690:are not notable, how in the world is an
634:trivial mentions. In addition, there is
79:
546:only mentions it in a single paragraph
7:
446:? Your argument doesn't stand up. --
77:
778:list of Internet-related deletions
630:of the sources provided have been
200:. If it is infact notable because
24:
620:Wikinfo is well known or notable
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
554:referencing their VP archives!
380:arguments are unconvincing. /
181:Functioning Fork of Knowledge
1:
788:08:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
768:11:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
757:00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
738:00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
725:17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
703:11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
595:09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
573:04:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
509:17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
497:04:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
451:00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
438:01:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
426:01:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
413:22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
397:15:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
385:13:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
360:12:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
206:merged to Knowledge's article
82:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo
65:15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
692:unofficial fork of Knowledge
536:, and only mentions Wikinfo
534:extremely unreliable website
298:WP:OHHEYTHEYRETALKINGABOUTUS
283:twice, in a single paragraph
823:
556:. There's been absolutely
370:reliable secondary sources
347:proof of notability under
300:. Furthermore, even their
250:reliable sources I see on
799:Please do not modify it.
306:a redlinked project page
264:actually about Knowledge
32:Please do not modify it.
610:-- and that mention is
516:As nobody has actually
318:notability requirements
262:, while the article is
198:no less than six times
76:AfDs for this article:
626:is evidence of this.
616:discussion of Wikinfo
612:referencing Knowledge
622:, and the fact that
246:Now, there are only
204:, then it should be
50:consensus can change
688:Official Wikipedias
548:of a large article
404:non-notable, fails
228:that shows that it
224:actually link to a
684:List of Wikipedias
614:. I see no actual
310:absolutely nothing
230:is in fact notable
790:
781:
604:This full version
192:'s statistics to
814:
801:
782:
772:
736:
701:
571:
522:showing a source
495:
358:
164:
146:
56:information, or
34:
822:
821:
817:
816:
815:
813:
812:
811:
810:
804:deletion review
797:
785:John Vandenberg
730:
695:
565:
550:about wikipedia
489:
352:
226:reliable source
137:
121:
118:
116:
74:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
820:
818:
809:
808:
792:
791:
770:
759:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
708:
707:
706:
705:
577:
576:
575:
499:
455:
454:
453:
428:
415:
399:
387:
339:and should be
326:Merge it with
308:. I have seen
244:
243:
242:
241:
237:Bad-faith nom
235:
234:
233:
215:
214:
213:
171:
170:
117:
115:
114:
109:
104:
99:
94:
89:
84:
78:
75:
73:
68:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
819:
807:
805:
800:
794:
793:
789:
786:
779:
775:
771:
769:
766:
763:
760:
758:
755:
750:
747:
746:
739:
735:
734:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
717:
712:
711:
710:
709:
704:
700:
699:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
660:Luxembourgish
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
587:
581:
578:
574:
570:
569:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:two sentences
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
500:
498:
494:
493:
487:
483:
479:
478:
473:
472:Conservapedia
468:
464:
459:
456:
452:
449:
445:
444:biggest rival
441:
440:
439:
436:
432:
429:
427:
424:
419:
416:
414:
411:
407:
403:
400:
398:
395:
391:
388:
386:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:Strong Delete
364:
363:
362:
361:
357:
356:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
329:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:own main page
299:
295:
291:
286:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:one paragraph
257:
253:
249:
239:
238:
236:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:
216:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
182:
180:
179:
178:
176:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
113:
110:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
72:
69:
67:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
798:
795:
773:
761:
748:
731:
714:
696:
691:
687:
656:Irish Gaelic
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
599:
584:
579:
566:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
501:
490:
485:
475:
466:
457:
430:
417:
401:
389:
365:
353:
344:
340:
336:
332:
325:
321:
309:
305:
301:
287:
282:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
247:
245:
229:
225:
221:
220:These votes
209:
205:
201:
194:another wiki
175:actual claim
174:
172:
57:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
506:Casey Abell
431:Strong keep
423:Newyorkbrad
337:it does not
256:three times
60:arguments.
562:WP:ILIKEIT
290:WP:ILIKEIT
664:Mongolian
652:Inuktitut
632:extremely
463:Knowledge
328:Knowledge
294:WP:USEFUL
648:Assamese
382:Blaxthos
217:Notable
167:View log
754:W.marsh
672:Quechua
668:Nahuatl
600:Comment
530:mention
514:Comment
477:notable
458:Comment
448:W.marsh
435:Dezidor
376:. The
368:- Zero
341:deleted
280:Wikinfo
252:Wikinfo
190:Wikinfo
140:protect
135:history
123:Wikinfo
71:Wikinfo
749:Delete
680:Uyghur
646:, see
486:nobody
482:WP:CCC
408:etc.—
406:WP:WEB
402:Delete
390:Delete
378:WP:IAR
374:WP:WEB
349:WP:WEB
320:, and
314:ignore
296:, and
186:WP:WEB
144:delete
765:Elmao
733:lucid
698:lucid
686:. If
676:Scots
568:lucid
526:three
518:shown
492:lucid
410:JyriL
394:Corpx
355:lucid
322:a lot
222:never
161:views
153:watch
149:links
62:Xoloz
16:<
774:Note
762:Keep
721:talk
694:? --
608:once
591:talk
580:Keep
564:. --
538:once
502:Keep
418:Keep
316:our
272:zero
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
46:Keep
783:--
780:.
716:DGG
640:all
628:All
586:DGG
540:in
467:not
345:any
276:one
258:in
248:two
210:not
165:– (
58:new
54:new
752:--
723:)
678:,
674:,
670:,
666:,
662:,
658:,
654:,
650:,
636:no
593:)
558:no
480:.
465:,
351:.
333:if
292:,
285:.
208:,
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
719:(
589:(
232:.
169:)
163:)
125:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.