Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enciclopedia Libre


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Enciclopedia Libre
I can't find any notable sources in the article. FurryiamIAM 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) To explain better: it fails notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR. Basically wikipedia does not keep articles just because they have a website. Wikipedia requires a second party source like a newspaper article (please see those guideline links, it has to fullfill them). FurryiamIAM 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable Wikipedia fork. First fork of Wikipedia, part of our history. Fred Bauder 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have tried to explain myself better when I say notable sources (added to the top). FurryiamIAM 19:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't be WP:POINT, would it? Geogre 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there is nothing to hide. Here you have a mention on one of Spain's two major newspapers. It says Wikipedia also has competitors, such as the Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, which has over 29.000 articles. Here you have a review on the other major newspaper. It says On line, open and free encyclopedia that boast not to be subject to any censorship but its own users's and that is open to the collaboration of the navigator. It is organized by countries, subject, current issues, debates. With a design-less design, its evolution, so far enthusiastic, will have to be tracked. In Spanish, as they say. It gets three "symbols" out of five.
 * The split itself was covered by Cyberpais on March 21, 2002. Currently offline, but this was a printed media, so you can find it in a good library. This is a transcript.
 * Here there is a partial list of sites linking to Enciclopedia Libre'' (EL).
 * How many more references do you think are needed to keep it? User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On a related issue, if this article is deleted, does it mean that History of Wikipedia will have to be rewritten? What about Spanish Wikipedia (two out of three paragraphs talk about the split)? What about articles translated from EL or from Spanish Wikipedia that were taken from EL? User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Ejrrjs Neil916 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I put this up for AFD because the sources Here and Here were not in the article (I was not aware of them). They still were not just a moment ago and I added them in it. FurryiamIAM 06:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:POINT nomination, notable, has sources. --Conti|&#9993; 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Seems notable enough but cited sources are bad (just listings of multiple websites, no actual newspaper articles). --Peephole 17:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article seems reasonable enough and is important in Wikipedia's history. --Draicone (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Draicone vovkav 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above --Vovanium 13:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please this fork is notable maybe point nomination Yuckfoo 04:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * strong keep This fork is a part of Wikipedia's history Lurker your words/my deeds 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep because again, it is part of our history, the sources it has are seemingly iron-clad, and as an Esperanzan, I believe it should also be kept here because it is among the main reasons we formed and the reason our name is…Esperanza (hope). The one and only Cliff  23:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. "Verifiable" is not equal to "copy-pasted from a stated source". Was it intended to be a joke or WP:POINT? CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:56, 28 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.