Content deleted Content added
Retired username (talk | contribs) d |
→[[Wipipedia]]: Keep |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*'''Weak keep''' I just went to take a look there, that website is doing a lot better than before and there are many informative articles on BDSM. But I'm not sure about whether it's notable or not, so given the benefit of the doubt I !vote weak keep. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Weak keep''' I just went to take a look there, that website is doing a lot better than before and there are many informative articles on BDSM. But I'm not sure about whether it's notable or not, so given the benefit of the doubt I !vote weak keep. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
** Yes, with a dozen edits per month, my personal wiki has more edits :-) [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
** Yes, with a dozen edits per month, my personal wiki has more edits :-) [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*** Please do not supply incorrect information; there were well over 100 edits in the last 30 days.--[[User:Runcorn|Runcorn]] 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''keep''' per Wooyi. [[User:Kintetsubuffalo|Chris]] 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''keep''' per Wooyi. [[User:Kintetsubuffalo|Chris]] 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak keep''' Could be kind of notable with the articles there. [[User:Corpx|Corpx]] 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Weak keep''' Could be kind of notable with the articles there. [[User:Corpx|Corpx]] 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
*** Nobody here brought any real arguments against the non-notability claim. [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
*** Nobody here brought any real arguments against the non-notability claim. [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Erring on the side of caution here means '''delete''' until sources are actually found. Verifiability/reliable sourcing doesn't become optional just because the site is a Wiki, contrary to what many people believe. The closest thing I can find to a source [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=Wipipedia&ie=UTF-8] isn't in english and an inspection suggests it may be a typo and they meant Wikipedia, since they only say Wipipedia once. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
*Erring on the side of caution here means '''delete''' until sources are actually found. Verifiability/reliable sourcing doesn't become optional just because the site is a Wiki, contrary to what many people believe. The closest thing I can find to a source [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=Wipipedia&ie=UTF-8] isn't in english and an inspection suggests it may be a typo and they meant Wikipedia, since they only say Wipipedia once. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' No evidence is being supplied that has not already been considered and rejected at AfD and DRV.--[[User:Runcorn|Runcorn]] 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:10, 12 May 2007
Wipipedia
Non-notable website, without any claim of notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability. bogdan 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Extreme BDSM Delete 900 articles in 3 years? Hardly notable. - Francis Tyers · 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Er, no (or whatever the safe word is) delete--Docg 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment What new issue is being raised here that wasn't extensively discussed during the last two rounds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination) ? -- AnonMoos 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- People ignore the policy when voting. Anyway, this article could be speedy deleted under the no notability claim/spam rule. :-) bogdan 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep I just went to take a look there, that website is doing a lot better than before and there are many informative articles on BDSM. But I'm not sure about whether it's notable or not, so given the benefit of the doubt I !vote weak keep. WooyiTalk to me? 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- keep per Wooyi. Chris 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Could be kind of notable with the articles there. Corpx 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Erring on the side of caution here means delete until sources are actually found. Verifiability/reliable sourcing doesn't become optional just because the site is a Wiki, contrary to what many people believe. The closest thing I can find to a source [1] isn't in english and an inspection suggests it may be a typo and they meant Wikipedia, since they only say Wipipedia once. --W.marsh 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No evidence is being supplied that has not already been considered and rejected at AfD and DRV.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)