Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibraltarpedia


 * 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   Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltarpedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non Notable. May be kept in wikipedia or project namespace, but not in the main space. &mdash; Zanaq (?) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is based on press reports documenting a development which is liable to act as a catalyst for further expansion along similar lines. If this article is to be deleted, then Monmouthpedia (a similar initiative) should probably also be deleted. --Ipigott (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG, citing multiple reliable news stories which talk about the project. Sionk (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the sources in the article are at the same time almost all available sources. It is very unknown, much more unknown than Monmouthpedia. Do not use wikipedia to generate notability, not even (and especially not) for our own projects. &mdash; Zanaq (?) 12:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No-one's "generating notability". The notability is indicated by the independent reliable news sources cited in the article, which is a main requisite of WP:GNG. After all, there's a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia too! Sionk (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this article fails to meet WP:GNG, mainly the criteria "Sources" and "Independent of the subject": the sources are mainly gibraltarian websites and some sources are on the same website (so are the same source). This is supposed to be an online project, and for notable (western) online projects I expect a lot of google hits and a high Alexa rank. 3000 hits is not much, even the 60.000 hits for Monmouthpedia are not much in my opinion. &mdash; Zanaq (?) 14:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Coverage in the Gibraltar Chronicle and other sources meet WP:GNG criteria. Gobōnobo  + c 20:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Government involved project, covered in reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep KConWiki (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per GNG. Coverage in national newspapers merits sufficant notability for inclusion. Also to those using the google results argument,, check WP:GOOGLEHITS. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep This is not just WP navel-gazing, this project is actually being done with the full support of the government of Gobraltar. It has a nice pile of reliable sources already and that pile is bound to grow as the project builds steam. This is something we should all be proud of, nomination statement is very weak and easily contravened by the available evidence. Reccomend this be closed now per WP:SNOW Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2012 (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.