Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wapedia


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wapedia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable Wikipedia-related website. Obviously does not meet WP:WEB notability criteria; might not have even been created were it not for its connection to Wikipedia. Creator has expressed the concern that it might belong at Tools. I do not think this article itself would be of much use there, but if someone would like to create a tools page for this and thinks that the current article could be of assistance in any way, it could be userfied. Savidan 02:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per google news hits. The first link + non English sources might be enough Corpx 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The first source you appear to be referring to seems to be a minor reference, with very few facts about Wapedia. This article, by itself, might not even be enough to establish Wikipedia as a notable website. I think that WP:WEB requires that the article be about Wapedia, rather than mentioning it almost as an aside. Could you be more specific about this foreign language sources claim? Savidan 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what they say, but I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt in this case.  Hopefully somebody else can translate some of the other listings there Corpx 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to accept foreign-language sources if they can be cited to support a WP:WEB criteria. I'm not willing to keep the article on the basis that we just don't know what they are saying. Savidan 05:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure somebody will be able to decode it within the next 7 days Corpx 05:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I quickly browsed through the german Google hits in the link you posted, but I didn't find in-depth coverage. The most detailed and independent article seems to be this one from a major newspaper in Switzerland, but it discusses general access options to Wikipedia from PDAs / mobile phones, and briefly mentions Wapedia as one option. The other hits are similar. --B. Wolterding 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. is an article primarily about this subject, as (apparently) is [ (my German isn't as good as my French, so I can't say I entirely understand this article, but it certainly seems to be).  Also reviewed briefly in  and .  I'm pretty sure between the four of them, that's enough coverage to meet [[WP:WEB]]. JulesH 11:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but the second source is nearly a textbook example of trivial coverage. It's an entry from the Q&A section of a computer magazine. It doesn't give in-depth coverage about this company; the first paragraph in fact doesn't mention it, it summarizes a page on German Wikipedia (which covers many mobile access options to Wikipedia). The other part tells us briefly (10 lines) about the website, without even mentioning its name, and gives two links. That's not a "non-trivial published work" about the website, in my interpretation. The French source does not seem to contain much more (although my French is not too good). — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Wolterding (talk • contribs)
 * WP:WEB doesn't appear to have been updated to bring it into line with WP:N, but going by the definition of notability at WP:N allows us to see that a larger number of less significant mentions is adequate. I'd say that because there are multiple short reviews of this site it is suitable for inclusion. JulesH 12:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that we are obliged to think about the ultimate quality of the article. Are we going to have an article with a dozen foreign language references after the first sentence (the one that says its a way to get Wikipedia on your pda), followed by either nothing or original research? Savidan 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Once notability is established, we can use the site itself as a source. No OR necessary. JulesH 16:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More sources.  JulesH 16:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (or merge) We accept references in any language (but I imagine there will also soon by English reviews) . The French ref seems a brief editorial notice, the German one a somewhat longer brief review, the title Gibt es Wikipedia auch für den Handheld? (approximately, "Is Wikipedia also available for hand-holds?" may be a title, not a reader question, & I think qualifies as a brief review. The third is pocket pc mag, which I am not familiar with, but it is a long detailed review. Only the 4th, in PC World, is indeed a trivial mention. But there is already a WP space page  WP:WAP access that provides the same information. DGG (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The German language sources are clearly establishing notability User:Krator (t c) 23:53, 10 August 2007 (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.