Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developers Digest


 * 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 of the debate was delete Jtkiefer T  01:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Developers Digest
NN website. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a Mediawiki site without which we wouldn't be here. CalJW 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't be here without MediWiki, yes. We do just fine without this pissant nonsense.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Absolutely a notable website. What's with the rampage against "NN websites"?  Please verify before listing an article for AfD.  &mdash; The Hooded Man &#9795;&#9794; 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Um, what the hell? Just because a site runs MediaWiki doesn't make it notable. It's a wiki with SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. Yes, SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. The fact that it happens to run MediaWiki is irrelevant. FCYTravis 06:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this needs to be written in twenty foot letters: SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES .  What the fuck, actually.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that it happens to run MediaWiki is irrelevant - what the hell, the category is called MediaWiki websites. The category description is Website that runs MediaWiki software - I believe my website falls into that category, no? --RossOliver


 * Keep per arguments above. Also please refrain from foul language. Many younger editors participate in these discussions. Frustrations can be expressed in other ways-- JJay 09:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, a website whose only claim to notability is that it runs a popular and well-known piece of wiki software. The wiki for a freakin' MU* that I play on has more than 68 articles, for God's sake! And yes, it runs MediaWiki. And no, I will not write an article on it because I'm sane. If 'runs popular software' is a criteria for notability now, should we vote to keep all websites that use HTML? Lord Bob 13:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Delete as advertising. Nice looking site but at this point in time entirely non-notable. Actually, I'd say speedy delete as vanity and advertising, if that's possible. The site's About page has been viewed a grand total of 98 times, and is one sentence long. The forum says 'Most users ever online was 6'. I rest my case! --kingboyk 17:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as non-notable. I wouldn't call it a rampage but if every website knew we blindly accepted any free advertising they threw at us - we'd be in very sad shape.Ifnord 18:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per kingboyk's research. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.TheRingess 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is irrelevant as it's not official Wiki policy, just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to edit.Jcuk 21:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's what they are doing here - why does something not being policy make it "irrelevant"? That trees grow toward the sun is not policy, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are not policies the rules by which we decide whether or not something should be kept? Jcuk 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Christ - I didn't realise a website had to be popular in order for it to be listed on the 'MediaWiki websites' page. If it's that big of a deal, delete the article; I obviously misunderstood the use of that category. No need to slander my website though. --RossOliver
 * I can see how there'd be a misunderstanding, so I'll try and explain as best I can. Categories are not intended to list all things that fit into that category, merely to list all things that fit into that category and qualify to appear in Wikipedia as per the policies and significant precedent that have been laid out. Lord Bob 21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, I misunderstood and I apologise. In fact, I even went as far as to politely apologise to this guy when he first listed my page for deletion and for him to come back and call my website 'pissant nonsense' isn't really on. --RossOliver
 * I agree, as that violates our civility policy, and assume good faith. Mr. Oliver, we sincerely hope that your site does develop great interest in the future, and that someday it will merit an encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 22:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second that. This has nothing to do with the quality of the site (note to person below) nor about being mean or rude, but as to whether it currently belongs in an encyclopedia. I'd say no it doesn't, but I hope that some day it will! --kingboyk 10:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm surprised you've been poorly treated here. The insults that are being tossed around are beyond the pale. You deserve an apology. That said, I voted keep and think your site is good and merits a page at wikipedia. -- JJay 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete running mediawiki does not make a site worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Agnte 07:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The JPS 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn.  Grue   14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB.Gateman1997 18:21, 21 December 2005 (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.