Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ansiklopedika.org


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 23:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ansiklopedika.org

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about internet project with no third-party refrences or anything else asserting notability, probably subject to systematic bias--Ipatrol (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy as a non-notable website Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy rejected; It has 6,000 articles, but what the heck. Delete as non-notable per my rationale. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - It doesn't seem to meet any of the three basic criteria for WP:WEB. If/when it does, it can be re-created.  Linguist At Large  20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable website. Res2216firestar 20:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - It serves for the same ideals with Wikipedia. It has nearly 6000 articles. That's More than lots of wikipedia projects in different languages. Has more to give than those projects and it deserves more to be kept. It does more good than harm if it is to be kept.MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those reasons fulfill WP:WEB, the criteria for websites and similar. Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We have thousands articles and lists of porn stars here on wikipedia. How come they could be notable enough to be on wikipedia; but Ansiklopedika that serves nearly 6000 articles for free to the whole world is not notable. Better ask Jimbo Wales if porn stars lists is better to be on Wikipedia than Ansiklopedika. Regards. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the biographies of pornographic actors fulfill the notability criteria set out in WP:PORNBIO. Please read the WP:WEB page as directed to see the criteria your page will have to fulfill to be kept. "Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to keep a page. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Go and delete than. Why open this page for comments? MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you removed the PROD tag, thereby signalling you had an issue with the page being deleted via policy. Thank you, however for confirming that even the articles creator doesn't think it fulfils the notability guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not remove any tag. And second is if it is to make you more happy to keep porno stars but not a 6000 article source of free knowledge go ahead and delete it. That was what i ment. I am not confirming it does not fullfill the notability as u say so. Thanks and regards. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I directed you to the guidelines it has to fulfill, you replied that we should "go and delete". If you do feel you can fulfil the notability guidelines, please go ahead and do so. Ironholds (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wont argue with you my friend. Go and do what makes you more happy. Pls dont reply me once again. Concentrate on the issue not me. Thanks. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, I am concentrating on the issue. I feel that the page cannot possibly fulfill the guidelines set out in WP:WEB, and as such wish for it to be deleted. You, on the other hand, feel otherwise. Feel free, as I said, to expand the page in line with those guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. Epbr1 space23 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Symbol reply.svg Reply for Omulazimoglu Don't fall into the numbers trap, with a lot of time and server space someone could theoretically create a website with thousands of pages, millions of bytes of text, and trillions of links to and from it and it wouldn't nessecarily be notable. Being a wiki dosen't make it notable either, it just indicates there's a given number of users who spend a given amount of time to create those pages. Not all Wikipedias deserve a page either of course. Wikipedia has a page because it's been covered in the news and has had an impact in popular culture. So I nominated this page because it could not . Therefore I reaffirm my stance as delete.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.