Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikIran


 * 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 -- Samir धर्म 04:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WikIran


Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Heja Helweda 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if it can be verified, it needs two outside coverages per WP:WEB. MER-C 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wiki website that exists. Notable in Iran. For MER-C's comment: Would LyricWiki fail as well? Sr13 07:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WikIran pales into insignificance when compared with LyricWiki. Merely existing isn't an assertion of notability and therefore cannot be used to argue for the keeping of this article. MER-C 08:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with MER-C here. WP:WEB is pretty clear. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --Brad Beattie (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable website in Iran, mentioned in the electronic and printed media. --ManiF 12:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Provides no links to third-party coverage. Sandstein 13:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:WEB, with the emphasis on multiple and non-trivial (no indication that the Iranian.com reference was substantial). Demiurge 13:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Using this query, I found a reference on the front page of Iranian.com, full text is: "our wiki/Build encyclopedia on Iran & Iranians/wikiran.org". From the "our" it looks like this fails the "independent" part of the WP:WEB criteria as well. Demiurge 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Important resource and referenced by Iranian.com. Lists over 500 articles and says it is "inspired by Wikipedia". WP:WEB is not a policy but guideline so we cannot say it is binding. Why delete now and then create again when you agree it is notable?? If this was on Wikia would you still delete? Keep and improve and let us be patient for "slashdot effect" :) Khorshid 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just so that people here know: WikIran's website will soon be transferred to a server provided by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as it continues to grow and expand. And unlike Heja's claim, it is a non-profit encyclopedia and it is referenced and mirrored by several other websites.--Zereshk 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Its notability section has me convinced.  P.B. Pilh e  t  /  Talk  23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the sources is not independent (as I pointed out above), the other is simply a website directory which trivially includes the site. (The article's claim that the "our" means "belonging to the Iranian community" seems more than a little dubious to me, considering it wasn't added until after I made my point above.) Demiurge 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's little more than an ad pamphlet. MB
 * Keep, as important. Siba 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB, recreate when/if it does. - Francis Tyers · 15:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete bogdan 15:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also please not that there are some copyvios on their "encyclopedia", as some articles are copy-pasted from Wikipedia without attribution: for example http://www.wikiran.org/wiki/Ziyarid from Ziyarid. bogdan 15:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alleged copyvios on that site are no reason to delete a Wikipedia entry. It is not just a Wikipedia mirror, it is a Wikipedia spin-off that has developed in its own way.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * May I ask why you put the word encyclopedia in quotes, as if to suggest that it's not a real encyclopedia? So, from your perspective, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but this one isn't, right? :) That's nice. Now, the history of the article you mention was started by Zereshk, and if he's involved with wikIran, the copyvio issue is a bit moot. But there's another thing, which makes that point even more moot. It's released under the GFDL as well, just like Wikipedia, so someone can easily go there and put the attribution there if it's missing. Right? I mean, that is the entire purpose of the GFDL, is it not? Floodlands 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, also please note that linking WikIran (being a small wiki) "should be avoid", according to our policy. I see that to some extent the spamming of Iran-related pages has already been began. :-) bogdan 06:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which policy is that? I've been looking through the policy pages, and can't find anything that says Wikipedians aren't allowed to link to small websites or wikis. That's nonsense. As an admin, you're really shouldn't make things up. If an editor incorporates text from wikIran or another public GFDL corpus provider, they can also add an attribution link. By virtue of that fact alone, your claim is incorrect. By the way, why the antagonism? You want to delete this article, that's fine. But please do not make false accusations of "spamming" against other users. Assume good faith, and leave your sarcasm at the door. Thanks. Floodlands 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * from External links: "Links normally to be avoided": Links to wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial numbers of editors.. bogdan 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice try. That's a guideline, not a policy. As an admin, shouldn't you have a clear understanding of the difference? ;) Floodlands 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikiran appears to be a one man show, as the only person who edited it in the last week is a certain User:Aeon, so it fails to meet the criteria. bogdan 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually judging from the history of articles User:Fesenjoon looks to be the more active user. But this is a moot point. The importance of any website is the quality of its content, not the quantity of users involved. What's interesting is that this wouldn't even be an issue if this site experiences what another editor here calls the "Slashdot effect" and achieved significant notability. I'm sure you would still use that "one-man-show" bit as an excuse for deletion, but you would never be able to dispute the notability criteria. What is nice to see are the other editors here who are positive in their outlook, desiring to delete now, but recreate later when notability is attained. And it is also of note to mention that these editors refrain from making accusations and the use of a sarcastic tone. Wikipedia needs far more positive, level-headed editors like that. Floodlands 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Zereshk. Khoikhoi 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are a lot less notable subjects on Wikipedia related to fictional places and people, why not have a short entry on a new on-line encyclopaedia?--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Can be recreated when it does. &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per similar AfDs at GetWiki and Wikinfo or merge with Iranian media (or some such article). Possibly a bad faith nomination. metaspheres 11:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a bad faith assumption!--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 16:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. Not based on the edit history. metaspheres 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Demiurge Bastiq ▼ e demandez 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Existing isn't a claim to notability, "important" isn't a reason to keep, and 500 articles is almost nothing for a wiki. Waiting for the Slashdot effect to hit it, or even wanting Wikipedia to help produce that effect, is no reason to keep it and if anything a reason to delete. This website does not meet WP:WEB. --Rory096 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zereshk. Looks good to me. DragonRouge 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough. Bertilvidet 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Some so called admins are already taking it upon themselves and deleting all links to WikIran articles on WP. Note User:Bogdangiusca's edits for example. His deletions are not "policy" as he claims, but guidelines, and he knows it. Yet he persists. Sad part is that if you take a closer look, most WikIran articles are more complete in content than their WP counterpart. I see such moves as purely intentional and obstructive.--Zereshk 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Spam is also a guideline. That doesn't prevent people from removing "Enl4rge Y0ur Pen1s" ads. :-) bogdan 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That comparison is totally out of line. There is no way you can pass off adding links to wikIran as "spamming" especially considering both the nature of the site and the fact that Zereshk has been by far the most active editor in the sphere of Iranian articles here on Wikipedia. Respect and manners go a long way in this world. Before his arrival, the vast majority of Iran articles were mere stubs. Accusing a long-term editor of his class, expertise and sincerity - not to mention all the incredible amounts of time he has dedicated to Wikipedia - of spamming is in, to put it bluntly, incredibly bad taste and is a borderline personal attack. Floodlands 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing with your objection to this comment, but given that you've only been on Wikipedia two days, it is amazing that you know so much about Zereshk's edit history.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that this user certainly has never edited alongside Zereshk; except for one edit to his userpage, this user has never edited outside this AfD! --Rory096 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ... although the user's evident interest in this AfD has not prompted them to vote.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have any specific objections or problems with me, there are other, more proper channels for that. Otherwise, please refrain from any further commenting on my responses, unless you are objecting to any points that I have raised. Thanks. Floodlands 01:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Its another Encyclopedic work like Wikipedia and people should know about it. Plus there is also an Armeniapedia and probably more such Encyclopedic sites. I support such sites fully.  --alidoostzadeh 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Ali.Khosrow II 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not a personal website, it is a free encyclopedia similar to Wikipedia. - Marmoulak 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep,per ALi.--Pejman47 09:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Hectorian 12:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (removed comment by banned user Darkred). Khoikhoi 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you got any proof of this? Are you referring to those named here ? It could have an impact on the article's content, if the article is saved - I still maintain my keep vote, but think that such details should be included if they are true.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An interesting point: WikIran was started on 7 May (according to the history of its main page), which is coincidentally the same date as the remedies concluded for the Aucaman arbitration, which set out topical bans . I think there is a fair point here . Personally, I think WikIran is just the first of many, created because collaborate projects work better when the editors are unified behind a certain editorial line rather than the despair and futility that Wikipedia generates - and what's wrong with that?--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you and the above anon are going to make accusations against specific editor(s), please name names. And provide a name for yourself as well, and your background in that case. And of course, please provide concrete evidence. Otherwise, please refrain from such speculations. Also, I have to ask the anon if s/he is also a banned user, and if so, please provide your banned username(s) for the record. Floodlands 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? Why should I give you my name, address and occupation simply because I have made an enquiry. And it is a bit rich for you to make demands as someone who has only created an account to participate in this AfD!--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Please keep your outrage to a minimum and read my post carefully. And by the way, this is not a message board for general discussion. Thanks. Floodlands 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are extremely knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules for someone who has only just signed up. Some might say that you are a sockpuppet. But I could not possibly comment :o)--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To use your own words in a comment further above, "that's a bad faith assumption!" Floodlands 01:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia - we're all hypocrites here! ;o)--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that's supposed to imply, but to each their own, I guess. Floodlands 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It implies a joke.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I'm laughing. Floodlands 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Zereshk and Ali--Sa.vakilian 08:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It is notable enough.Gol 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. 69.140.173.15 17:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable as other wiki encyclopedias like Armeniapedia and Wipipedia Roozian 02:08, 26 November 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.