- Wikibin (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Deleted without discussion. I wanted the information in the article, and found it deleted. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Wikibin is a collection of articles deleted from Wikipedia. Each individual article was deleted for lack of notability. Does gathering them together somehow make them notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would tone down the personal attacks if I were you. That said, endorse speedy deletion. There is no claim of significance nor anything else in which I could find besides the website itself. –MuZemike 07:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification – I was referring to the versions that were deleted per WP:CSD#A7 in my above endorsement, the personal attacks in the version deleted per WP:CSD#G3. –MuZemike 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sysops, is this the only deleted version? If so, G3, A3 etc... --Mkativerata (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's more to it than that, Mkativerata (look at the logs). But even though there is more to it, the deletion process certainly appears to have been correctly followed, and I do not see how our encyclopaedia was improved by the addition of an article on this subject.—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I just can't see the versions behind the logs. Could there be a decent article about this site? Probably not but I don't know. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's a site for people who're butthurt about Wikipedia. Such a thing can be notable enough for its own article (e.g. Wikipedia Review). But this one isn't.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's another version by the OP with the same attacks on "Deletionists and taggers"; the earliest deleted version is a single paragraph that's ridiculously spammy (Wikibin "praises freedom of speech and aims at the preservation of articles that are deleted from Wikipedia.Its creation signified the first systematic effort to extend the scope of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which enshrines the freedom of speech to the internet sphere.", etc.), added by Mirellos (talk · contribs). Nothing to see here. Tim Song (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - none of this discussion has actually addressed a relevant issue. The question is, has this website been covered by a reliable source? If not, it doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. The content of the website itself is irrelevant - the question is whether it meets our inclusion guidelines. --B (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Send to AfD The connection with WP is a sufficient claim of importance to pass speedy. It may well not pass AfD, but the community should decide. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I'm not entirely comforable !voting - especially to endorse - without seeing the real deleted version of the article. I'm not sure it is as simple as "nothing more to see here": as DGG suggests, the connection with wikipedia alone could form the basis of a claim to significance or importance. However, I think overturning this and sending it to AFD would be futile, for two reasons. First, I can't find any coverage of the website anywhere. Secondly, with an A7 deletion there is no prejudice to recreating an article in the future. From Tim Song's comment it appears the deleted article was far from acceptable standard. If someone wants to recreate a better article, go for it.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|