Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikispecies


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikispecies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't appear to be a notable website. No reliable sources provided. Redirecting to Wikimedia Foundation, the article on the website's parent organization, is also a possibility. Picaroon 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect per nom. Even if it from Wikimedia Foundation, it still fails WP:V since it has no third party sources. TJ Spyke 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no third party sources. DXRAW 04:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, despite being an official Foundation site, this one has not obtained notability like Wikipedia yet. I'm sure it will come, but until then get rid of this article.  Lankiveil 06:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
 * WikiDelete - couldn't find any non-trivial third party sources. Nothing on google or google news but google news archives brings up a few passing mentions on articles about wikipedia (see ). Fails WP:WEB. MER-C 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; I found two external sources: and, but the second one is a blog. BTW, can we delete Inuktitut Wikipedia after this one? Tizio 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to prune this wikicruft. MER-C 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we just had the Inuktitut WP up fro AfD not too long ago. If you really want, you can put it up in a couple of weeks. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But your best course of action is to actually do the research and look for sources yourself before thinking about a re-nomination. You had the right idea here in this discussion.  You need to work that way elsewhere, too.  Uncle G 03:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither TJ Spyke nor DXRAW are following Deletion policy here. That an article doesn't cite sources is not a reason for deletion.  It's a reason to look for sources.  Tizio had the right idea.  Xe actually looked for sources, and located one source in American Scientist.  I've looked for sources too, and found other sources in Nature and Science.  Fixing this article didn't require an administrator to hit a delete button, and whether this content warrants a separate article or a merger into an article with a wider scope is a matter of article merger, not deletion.  Keep. Uncle G 14:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up per Uncle G. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Uncle G has already improved the article sufficiently. --Metropolitan90 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepThe sources found are more than sufficient. Perhaps they should have been looked for in the first place.DGG 03:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The burden of attributing statements is on he who adds the info, not he who deletes. If an article doesn't cite its sources, I can look for them, or I can remove the unsourced info, or, if totally unsourced (or unreliably sourced), I can propose its deletion. All are perfectly acceptable methods. Picaroon 03:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You should really read the sentence following the one in Attribution that you have just paraphrased, which talks about your making reasonable efforts to find sources, yourself. You should also read Deletion policy and Guide to deletion.  The burden is on you, as a nominator who is nominating an article for deletion for being unverifiable, to look for sources.  It is not enough to simply note that there are none cited in the article.  That does not constitute unverifiability, and is not a rationale for deletion, per policy.  DGG is quite right.  Uncle G 04:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Uncle G. Lack of due diligence on behalf of the nom.  I am appalled that April 21 has 142 articles listed for deletion. John Vandenberg 09:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Has sufficient third party references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Normally, this would be a debatable case, and I would be vehemently saying "we have enough Wikipedia/Wikimedia navelgazing stuff already", but I've always thought that as a special case, top-level Wikimedia projects are automatically notable No Matter What You Say&reg; in a certain common-sense way. However, in case of smaller projects (Meta, Commons, Species, etc) that don't have international versions aside of separate language pages merging to Wikimedia Foundation (or related article) is plausible; it's another matter altogether is it warranted. (Was somewhat warranted in case of Meta, certainly would not be warranted in case of Commons and extremely, extremely debatably in case of Species.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep seems to be notable enough--Sefringle 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep cited in major scientific magazines. Judgesurreal777 19:40, 25 April 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.