Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiworld (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiworld
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article on a book related to Wikipedia which mostly talks about Wikipedia, not the book itself. Provides no indication of this book's notability or even importance. Delete. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note The page deleted in Articles for deletion/Wikiworld was about a non-notable wiki, so CSD G4 does not apply. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Article has just started and the book itself does contain more than Wikipedia as Kimchi.sg seems to suggest. I strongly doubt that Kimchi.sg has read the book. Anyway, I need more time to write article proper, since I am just getting started. And I have to say, I do wonder where does this enthusiasm to speedy deletions comes from; perhaps it just demonstrates will to power, who knows. To me it is also a farewell to English language WP, unfortunately or not. Well, maybe that was too romantic. But you got my point. Kaksoispiste (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment on enthusiasm to speedy deletions: for most of us, we feel like we're gardeners who think it's easier to pull weeds before they grow. That being said, if you can write an article on this topic (even AFTER speedy deletion) with a neutral point of view and cite authoritative third party sources to establish notability, it could easily survive. A lot of speedy deletions are applied to speedy creations. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedia article like the one in question can be more than an encyclopedia article; it can be a data bank, a notebook, mode of social bookmarking and sometimes even - hopefully - serve as a course assignment or part of schoolwork. What if it will be deleted just like that? What is the point then? Can someone explain? Kaksoispiste (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement that the article "can be more than an encyclopedia article" is not a reason for keeping the article in Wikipedia. In fact it is a reason for deletion, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is not a repository for data banks, notebooks, modes of social bookmarking, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus, that's funny, actually. Mr. James B. Watson, the beauty of WP is precisely the fact that you, or anyone else for that matter, cannot determine the uses of and plethora of meanings giving to WP. Fortunately. What is matter with these deletionists anyway? Juha Suoranta (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Previous AfD discussions are irrelevant - they do not relate to this book. &mdash; RHaworth 10:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as not providing any verfiable information about the book itself, supported by reliable sources that go any way to meeting the notability criteria for books. The current article talks about the concept of "WikiWorld" and not the book itself. Searching for the title brings up obvious results using the same term but not in reference to this book or the authors. The main editor may want to have a brief look down the policy of what Wikipedia is not, as it entirely refutes the points made in their second paragraph, above.  one brave  monkey  09:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. Also, all copies of the book to be pulped because the cover uses the Wikipedia logo which is all rights reserved. &mdash; RHaworth 10:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Save it is a classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.212.4 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 September 2010 This editor also added "Save" to each of the above comments by Kaksoispiste. I removed these, as they are either refactoring of one editor's comments by another editor, or else multiple !votes by one editor, in either case not legitimate.


 * Delete The article does not give any independent sources at all. Nor do my searches find any independent reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. A blog, a press release and some external wikis are not enough to base an article on. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notabiligy not established. Sources cited are not useful in establishing notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 19:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Save. Can someone of you wise delete-people explain what's is the difference between Wikiworld and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code:_Collaborative_Ownership_and_the_Digital_Commons as it comes to you notability rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared69 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a great deal, on first impressions. It perhaps also should be reviewed. However, you might want to have a scan over this essay, as unfortunately comparisons like that don't really have much bearing on the article in hand.  one brave  monkey  15:22, 9 September 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.