Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia (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   delete. --Selket Talk 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Inciclopedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." WP:WEB states "Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources.". The article is almost entirely original research due to the lack of sources.

Sources evaluation from DRV:
 * According to Alexa.com the site is currently the 10,267,272th most popular site on the web.
 * Not in the top 250 Wikis in the world, according to List of largest wikis
 * Sources evaluation
 * http://estrecho.indymedia.org/newswire/display/73061/index.php
 * This is just an article saying that 'Frikipedia' was closed down. As far as I can see, 'Inciclopedia' isn't mentioned in it.
 * http://www.frikipedia.es/friki/Inciclopedia
 * An wiki article from the old spanish uncyclopedia, unreliable and full of nonsense.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WM2006_0060.jpg
 * A picture of Jimbo Wales from Wikipedia..
 * http://desciclopedia.pt/wiki/Tio1.jpg
 * Primary source of an image on the site..
 * http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/wikia.com
 * Alexa.com page for wikia.com showing that 8% of traffic to wikia.com goes to the site (according to alexa anyway) and it's the third most popular wiki of wikia.com
 * http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2006/09/16/LUCSTDI05LU1609.htm
 * The only decent substantial coverage from a newspaper. I don't read Spanish so can't say much about this. This source was proven to be questionable as a reliable source at the DRV:
 * The newspaper source is horrible. Did you look at its main page . This is a sensationalist newspaper that looks for curious stuff to cover. FFS, this is just low-quality yellow press that I doubt that has any reputation for fact checking. Looking at the Society section: "Condoms sell like hot bread this week(...) this time (people) is buying boxes of 12, tells Mirta Salazar, shopkeeper of the sucursal of Farmacias Ahumada of (street) Providencia with (street) Manuel Montt", they only asked one pharmacy shopkeeper. Not only this source is awful but it asserts no notability of Inciclopedia at all. See, it only covers Inciclopedia because it had a fun page, not because they found it notable, the article only talks about a parody that is found in *one* page on the site. The page could have been hosted at any other wiki and it would have been covered in the exact same way. Also, they just interview the senator to show him the parody and ask him about it and, from context, they never ask him about a website called Inciclopedia or ask his opinion about it. If *this* is the better source they could find at eswiki and here, then the assesment that there were no sources on the article asserting notability is totally correct. In other words: Dios mio, pero que mierda de fuente es esta, hace falta valor, qué coño estaban pensando en eswiki. The eswiki votation was based only on the fact that the voters like the website and want the article preserved, and they make absolutely no assesment of sources at all. I just don't want to watch the video from TV Cuatro in case I find something worse than the newspaper. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.cuatro.com/videos/index.html?xref=20071114ctoultpro_6.Ves&view=ver
 * A tiny mention on a TV show. "Inciclopedia was also mentioned..." Not a source to write an article from.
 * And having the article on the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't make it notable here. Unsuprisingly, there aren't any sources on the article there.
 * Notability and verfiability has clearly not been established, so delete. Otterathome (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, due to lack of notability establishment and verifiability, and for massive original research. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as the reliability of the sources could never be established. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and thanks for saving me some time-- I was going to nominate this article for deletion myself some time this week for the same reasons.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. To claim that Inciclopedia is "currently the 10,267,272th most popular site on the web" based on the Alexa rank of a redirect (inciclopedia.org) is nonsense and misleading. A redirected domain does not return meaningful Alexa rank, so not WP:RS by any stretch of imagination, and reposting this same nonsense again so soon after it was used in a previous failed attempt to delete the page (and pointed out as nonsensical at the time) is WP:POINT. I do not appreciate being given known-misleading information as a rationale to delete a page from the encyclopædia. --carlb (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't nominated solely for that reason, it was nominated because it fails our general notability guidelines and website notability guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom's thorough evaluation of the article. TN ‑ X - Man  14:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom's detail explanation.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2008 (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.