Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet encyclopedia project


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Internet encyclopedia project

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Poorly sourced dicdef, nothing but an examplefarm full of third-party links and red links. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The general topic of using the internet for creating an encyclopedia is notable enough and this could develop into a really useful and interesting article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the idea of Internet encyclopedias is quite notable; as there are multiple Internet encyclopedias that pass our notability guidelines, there's plenty of possible sourcing for this article. Perhaps move over redirect to Internet encyclopedia: "project" is good for encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, but it's not so good for encyclopedias such as the 1911 Britannica that are available online (and thus belong in this article), but which are expert-driven commercial works rather than volunteer-produced encyclopedias.  Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It could certainly use some more sourcing, but the history of attempts to create an internet encyclopedia is most certainly notable. To an extent, I agree with 10-lb. -- this shouldn't be an excuse to list examples of internet encyclopedias, and the bottom half of the page is basically a regurgitation of list of online encyclopedias.  Mandsford (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Wikipedia's article on itself has in its infobox, "Type of site Internet encyclopedia project". Clicking on Google news or Google books shows some places the phrase was also used, there no doubt it is a real thing.  The article is quite well written, plenty of information in it.   D r e a m Focus  05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To nominator, I only see three red links, and dozens of blue ones. And most of those links are to Wikipedia articles.   D r e a m Focus  05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia has many articles which arise from humble dicdef beginnings. Noms assertion that poorly refed seems misleading, I don't see any refs. But neither do I see exceptional statements or and content that seems dubious and needing sourcing to be introduced asap. Most of those links are blue and not red so that too seems false. It would be nice to see a few good refs but that subject is clearly notable and sourcible. WP:Before would seem to be a relative concept here. -- Banj e  b oi   11:32, 15 March 2010 (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.