Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetWiki (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 merge the most important information to Wikinfo. That would be the lead, as far as I can tell, which I have now merged. Sandstein 11:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

GetWiki


A prior AfD decision was overturned at DRV and is now back here for reconsideration. Please consult the prior discussions before discussing and closing. Procedural nomination, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - Having read the previous AfD and DRV, it seems the most important argument for its notability is that Wikinfo is using it, so I suggest we merge the most important information of this article into the Wikinfo article and then redirect. It isn't notable enough for its own article. Jayden54 10:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - I have previously argued vehemently for retaining the article and overstepped the line in several ways. Now that I've considered what others have told me, I've decided that consensus is the way to go, and that keeping the essential information but merging it into Wikinfo would achieve that.  Later on, should GetWiki get to be used by other notable wikis, we could reconsider this. David Cannon 10:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge per above, perhaps as a section in MediaWiki entitled "Forks of MediaWiki" or a separate article of the same name. Not notable enough by itself, but definitely deserves a mention. MER-C 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect Makes the most sense until the fork has been shown to still be in active development and used in a few other places. metaspheres 20:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or if you must, Merge and redirect, frankly, having reviewed both the prev. AfD and the deletion review, even a merge smells like rampant systemic bias about a subject that could really only be considered to notable by Wikipedians, but whatcha gonna do? (As for Wikinfo, I've never heard of it, not that that's really relevant, but I think it says something about how much insiders assume importance about Wikimedia-related topics when, I suspect, much of the world has never heard of Wikimedia.)  Xtifr tälk 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge per above, though this needs a giant chainsaw trim for that. Likely not notable enough for an article of its own. I don't think this warrants more discussion than one or a few paragraphs at most. *sigh* I needed to restore this article's talk page; why everyone neglects the poor widdle talk pages when restoring deleted pages? They're so cute and adorable when they're small. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - my understanding (feel free to correct me) - is that this is the only meaningful fork of MediaWiki that is in use. That in itself is something. BigDT 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment it may be "something", but is it something notable? Is there non-trivial independent coverage by reliable sources?  Or is this just something that deserves at most a minor footnote in the articles about MediaWiki and Wikinfo?  Frankly, I think this is starting to run afoul of WP:ASR.  Although I suppose it might be marginally better than Elephant (wikipedia article) (AfD).  (Or not.  The Elephant article was better written and better researched than this one, IMO.) Xtifr tälk 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to ask, what exactly is the story behind "Elephant (wikipedia article)"? The AfD mentions something about Colbert, so did the article have something to do with elephants, or was there something else going on that we should know about?? Seriously. metaspheres 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically, it was this: Colbert vandalised Wikipedia on TV. Unluckily, patrollers were awake. Wikipedia reacted by doing usual countervandalism measures. Then, someone created an article about the Wikipedia article and the incident. I think the article was ultimately userfied, I don't know where. I think the whole incident is documented in the Post somewhere, and in some article about Colbert. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per BigDT, or merge to Wikinfo perhaps. I just don't see a reason to delete this.  RFerreira 02:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Totaly lack of reliable and secondary sources (WP:V,WP:RS) and it fails to meet any guidelines for inclusion in Notability_%28software%29. --Quirex 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge per above points. Sharkface217 03:55, 2 December 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.