Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetWiki


 * 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 Deleted, powering Wikinfo really doesn't establish sufficient notability. Cyde Weys 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

GetWiki
Yet another bit of wiki software, 134 unique Googles excluding mirrors, seems to be notable solely for violating GPL. Version 1.0 product despite the initial fork being in 2004. No evidence presented of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Guy 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as NN. C56C 01:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. User:Yy-bo 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There are articles on numerous other wiki packages. Should all of them be deleted because they are "another bit of wiki software"? GetWiki is certainly notable as being, thus far, the only known fork of the MediaWiki software. It powers Wikinfo, which itself had been started by Fred Bauder, who has been involved with Wikipedia for a very long time now and is an admin and arbitrator here. I do not see why it is such a problem to have this article here, especially when there are ludicrious articles like teabagging that are far, far more deserving of deletion - and yet those types of articles are never deleted, while informative ones are. I wonder, why is that??? Metaspheres 06:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The information isn't worth removing entirely. Wiki software in general is gaining popularity, and an alternative to deleting it may be the best compromise. Inmatarian 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; no reliable sources for any claim to notability. Sandstein 19:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination details. -- Drahcir my talk  [[Image:Smile.png]] 20:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Quatloo 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Metaspheres. Tim Q. Wells 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No sign of third party reporting, advertorial, lack of ghits very relevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment So the deletionists want to eliminate these sorts of informative articles about actual piece of software, yet have no problem with a pointless and nonsensical article such as Flukeman??? LOL What a joke. And BTW, WP:SOFTWARE is not an official policy or guideline, but proposed. Metaspheres 09:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to nominate Flukeman (or similar articles) for deletion, to see if the community actually wants it kept. Petros471 09:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's nice. So all the fanboys around here can simply votestack so that it can be kept?? No, thanks. Politics, politics, politics. Metaspheres 09:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; notability is not asserted. Ral315 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Metaspheres established it's notability. It's a piece of history regarding a fork project of Wikipedia started by Fred Bauder. Again, the information is worth saving. I recommend allowing time for the article to be ammended to reflect that it has a history with the Wikipedia project, and then revisiting the possibility of deletion in the future if this step hasn't been taken. Inmatarian 02:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Getwiki powers Wikinfo, a not-insignificant wiki. Yes, the article leaves a lot to be desired, but the solution is to improve it, not nuke it.  Anyway, it's been up for over two years - so if you think it must go why have you left it till now? David Cannon 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Cannon, although it is rather unfortunate that the developers have strayed from GNU General Public License; it would be of great benefit if they were to return to that licensing scheme. Yamaguchi先生 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - per David Cannon Unitedroad 11:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do not agree on deleting the information provided entirely, but maybe it should be merged into another article regarding this kind of applications. chsf 18:10, 20 September 2006 (CET)
 * keep please per metaspheres not sure really where this can be merged to Yuckfoo 21:54, 21 September 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.