Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Wiki


 * 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

City Wiki
There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link besides the website itself is a forum post and not only does that fail all wikipedia requirements, I think it's not even allowed to be linked (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. It's an article on a type of wiki, not an individual one. There's also a German language page on the same thing. de:stadtwiki Looks like the nom isn't paying attention and is putting AfDs up today willy-nilly on anything that has the word wiki. Mithridates 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Appears to be a vehicle for external links to a bunch of related wikis linked in that article.  At very minimum, remove all those links. Phr (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Anomo 15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I assume everybody's taken a look at this link for example on how the German Wikipedia's written the article and arranged their city wikis? Considering the vast number of wikis out there on individual cities I can't see a reason to delete the article. I could go with a rewrite and removal of individual wiki references but I see no reason for a deletion. Mithridates 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and could add WP:NEO to that list as I can't find evidence of this term in general use.--Isotope23 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:WEB Computerjoe 's talk 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - but remove the weblinks to individual city wikis, because they are all on city-wiki-center and this is not a weblink-collection. City wikis have attention in Newspapers, the german dpa had a big story earlier this year. If you would like, we can offer this ranking page in englisch to. (I'm one of the founders of allmende.stadtwiki.net - Allmende is an old German word for commons :) --Kawana 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but delete weblinks per WP:NOT a linkfarm. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up, it is a growing type of wiki--169.229.80.226 06:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this is as stated above a verifiably significant wiki genre. Just zis Guy you know? 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment article is despammed now but no longer says how to find the city wikis for those cities. The individual city articles don't have them.  And spreading those spam links across 10 articles (each with its own high-ranked Google hit for a bazillion keywords having to do with the individual cities) is even worse than having them all in one place.  Anyway the current state is better than what was there before. Phr (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the articles weblinks carefully, there you will find the link to list of all city wikis. --Kawana 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. rootology 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * please keep because DavisWiki redirects there &mdash; Donama 03:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC) DavisWiki was incorrectly redirecting there. Also CitiWiki is a wiki software. This article (City Wiki) is trash so I don't care if it's deleted. &mdash; Donama 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment if this article is to be kept, it must be renamed to City wiki and be generalised more to explain the term is used for geographical info about all sorts of places.
 * Good point! Anyway I agree with Donama that the article is weak. Phr (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2006 (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.