Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of wiki farms (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of wiki farms

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A list of Wiki farms that's basically advertising. The table on the page lists the name, price, and features. Price and features is blatant advertising. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 20:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The price column only lists whether it is a paid or free site. Maybe we can use another title for the column heading other than "price." I will change it to "free/paid." There is no advertising hype. Several people removed anything sounding like advertising hyperbole after the last couple deletion reviews. That was the main complaint of those last deletion reviews. Those considering the page for deletion should look at Comparison of raster graphics editors and the previous discussion at Talk:Comparison of wiki farms. All the problems mentioned in the previous deletion reviews have been solved. Advertising hype has been removed. There are no prices listed.--Timeshifter 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another reason to keep the wiki farms list is because it is a good place to point people when pages are deleted by all the "evil" (just kidding?) deletionists. :) --Timeshifter 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - just advertising. Graphics editors are notable in their own right, which web hosts are generally not. Nssdfdsfds 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia-type hosting is not notable? Wikia.com, founded by Jimbo Wales, is not notable? Wikipedia is consistently one of the top sites (number of hits). The software it uses, and spinoffs, are creating all kinds of collaborative content on the web. That is not notable? It is easily as notable as graphics and image editors. Collaborative text/HTML editors such as wikipedia, wikia, and wiki hosts are just as notable as regular text editors, etc.. See
 * Comparison of text editors
 * Comparison of layout engines (HTML)
 * Comparison of layout engines (graphics)
 * Comparison of layout engines (XML)
 * Comparison of web browsers
 * Collaborative editor
 * Comparison of raster graphics editors
 * Comparison of wiki software
 * List of wikis
 * List of collaborative software
 * I put the previously-mentioned comparison page in the list also, for convenience. --Timeshifter 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * People are going to know name of graphics editing (I can name right now Fireworks and Photoshop). People aren't going to know what BrainKeeper is. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of Fireworks. I use IrfanView. Many people have heard of Wikia.com hosting. The subject of a wikipedia list must be notable. But everything listed on the list does not have to be a household word. There is a guideline somewhere that discusses this. It talks of "Nixon's Enemies List." I doubt you have heard of everyone on that list. But the name "Nixon's Enemies List" itself is notable. --Timeshifter 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the guideline info. The Wikipedia is not a directory page states:


 * "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." --Timeshifter 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem confused. Yes, wikipedia is notable. Yes, wiki *software* is generally notable. No, wiki *hosting* is not notable. I do not see any comparison of web hosts on wikipedia, although I'm sure the software they use, Apache, mySql, etc. is covered Nssdfdsfds 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki hosts are just as notable as one-click hosters. See:
 * Comparison of one-click hosters --Timeshifter 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiki Science. Wikipedia is not a directory, or a wiki how-to guide. The Wiki Science wikibook is a suitable place for this information, however. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the guidelines and guideline sections you link to ban these lists on wikipedia. In fact, just the opposite. And you can not make up wikipedia guidelines on your own. I copied the appropriate section of the guideline you linked to. See my previous comment. Here is more below from the section I quoted from previously. It is from WP:NOT


 * "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example."


 * A list or comparison chart is not an instruction manual or a how-to guide. Please read the sections you linked to more carefully. --Timeshifter 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is very much a directory. Nearly all of the entries in this list are not notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia articles. Nixon's Enemies List is a completely different matter, because that list itself is the focus of that article. On the other hand, the list would be quite suitable for the Wiki Science Wikibook. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the wikibooks portal link to Wiki Science. I will bookmark it. It links back to another list on wikipedia: "A good starting point could be Comparison of wiki software." A big problem with the secondary wikipedia-linked sites (such as Wikibooks Wikispecies Wikipedia Commons Wikiquote Wiktionary Wikisource Wikinews Wikiversity) is that they all require separate logins. Lists and tables require a lot of people contributing to them. So wikipedia is the natural location for lists and tables. Until wikipedia and its offshoots create a common login, then the offshoots will always be much less popular for editors to jump in and edit. Too many watchlists to bookmark and keep track of. So for now, let us keep wikipedia for the lists and tables, and use the other sites for more specialist info such as the how-to guides, etc. that you mentioned. I may actually contribute there. But there is no way I could maintain a list or table by myself, and wikibooks will not have enough interested editors to maintain lists and tables. Many wikipedia editors drop in on list and table pages, though. So that is why we should keep them maintained on wikipedia for now. --Timeshifter 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing I thought of. Many people want a single NPOV table listing wiki farms and their features. I looked all over for such a list and this is the only up-to-date NPOV one I could find on one page on the web. Other wiki farms would not allow this comparison on their sites, because it lists their competition. As I said it takes lots of editing to keep such a list up-to-date, and especially to keep it NPOV. That requires that this list be on a wiki site such as wikipedia. And Wikipedia is the only wholeheartedly NPOV wiki site with lots of editors. So this is almost the only place this NPOV list could exist on a continual basis. So I ask people to consider that this is a notable topic, and that WP:NOT can, and has, been interpreted to allow many lists and tables on wikipedia, if the subject of the list or table is notable. Some of the lists or tables are content forks from the main articles covering the topic. I ask people to use common sense when interpreting wikipedia guidelines. I think the main point of the wikipedia guideline is to avoid unnecessarily duplicating database-type lists and tables on the web such as yellow pages, tv and radio schedules, hotel guides, campground guides, and other very detailed, commercially-oriented, stuff. --Timeshifter 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, it is difficult for me when I have too many watchlists. I already have several for wikipedia and its offshoots. It discourages me from participating in more offshoots because of the burden of checking up on the many watchlists. A common watchlist for wikipedia and all its offshoots would greatly encourage me and others to participate in more of the offshoots. Pages can't be protected from vandals unless there are enough people watchlisting them. And pages are difficult to edit collaboratively if one is not watching and reviewing the latest edits. --Timeshifter 03:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This i svery closely related to the interests of a great many people here, the information is well organized and by no means indiscriminate, and the parallel of similar pages is relevant. There is not yet a substantial body of even approximately similar material at Wikibooks. DGG 03:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per above. 68.91.255.124 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the best list of its kind, and I think it's very useful info. --R27182818 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "The best" sounds like I like it, and the vote above gives no keep reason having to do with policy. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not given any remaining policy reason either. You mentioned advertising earlier on. But there is no advertising in the article. It lists features just like many such lists do in wikipedia. See the other lists and tables. You mentioned prices. There are no prices in the article. It just says whether the wiki hosts are free or paid. Just like the other lists and tables do concerning image editors, text editors, and one-click web hosts. The intellectually honest thing to do is to change your own vote to "keep". People wanting to be admins have to show their willingness to graciously admit errors in applying wikipedia guidelines. That is what I have seen on the admin incident boards. Admins are respected when they acknowledge making mistakes, and when they listen to new information. And when they discuss how they have learned new things as circumstances change. --Timeshifter 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Telling if it's free or paid is against policy. Wikipedia is not a directory. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not against policy. I suggest you read that section more carefully. I already quoted from it. Wikipedia articles frequently tell whether something is free or not. --Timeshifter 15:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Section 3 of WP:NOT:Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. The last sentence is the most important part. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. A comparison of Wiki farms is the yellow pages. (By the way, Wiki farm shouldn't have a page either). --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 15:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are doing original research by your creative interpretation of one sentence in a wikipedia guideline. I also quoted from that guideline. See my previous comments. The other parts of that guideline contradict your interpretation.


 * See WP:NOT


 * "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example."


 * We have to use some common sense sometimes with wikipedia guidelines. We have to figure out the spirit of the guideline. The fact that all those other pages have survived this long should tell you something. If it survives this is the 3rd time this page will have made it through a deletion review. You mislabeled it as the second nomination. You should look at the talk page and the previous deletion review comments more carefully when nominating something for deletion. You are wasting a lot of valuable wikipedia time by these multiple deletion reviews. There are wikipedia pages that are really bad and need a deletion review. There are other uses of your time, too. See Contributing FAQ.


 * Did you see my latest reply to your comment on my talk page? I found more pages of interest. Now that is an area where you could make a lot of people very happy. Learning to program the PHP code, etc.. To create unified logins and watchlists. To expand the user base editing on the wikipedia offshoots. Then we could have a lot more places to put these lists and tables. It does little good to put these tables and lists on the offshoots now, because there is not a large enough user base there. --Timeshifter 15:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware this is the 3rd nomination. However, it's the second under this title. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe that Timeshifter's arguments for inclusion are sensible.  A possible suggestion though - perhaps more columns can be added to list the features, somewhat like in this article?  I'm not sure if that would make it too cumbersome.  Or perhaps a "features" section can be kept for the more eccentric differences, but have separate columns for the more common traits. Esn 02:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep.It includes a lot of information that may be helpful for some readers. Not advertising in my opinion.Biophys 06:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is obviously notable, nom's only valid arguments are on article quality, whuch is never the basis for deletion. Edit, don't delete articles that have quality issues.  Jerry 22:55, 9 April 2007 (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.