Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis (3rd nomination)

I guess I want to ask what I'm missing... why is this article up for deletion again? I know an article can be nominated repeatedly, and if conditions change, it should then be deleted. But what has changed here from the first two times this was nominated to be deleted? It just seems like a logical keep to me. So what am I missing? I'll admit bias, I trust Radiant! even when I don't agree with him, so ... what's the backstory? There must be something here? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To be frank I wasn't aware of the second AFD (I had, of course, started the first). During the time of the first AFD I had some encounters with people linkspamming for Yellowikis, and cleaning up after them. The article was kept, but one of the arguments was that it was new and may yet become notable. (also, several suggestions to userfy on that AFD were not acted upon). Recently I was cleaning out some corners of Wikispace and I found, once more, advertisement for this page. My first thought was, why the flip is that still here. Then I looked a bit deeper and noticed that their site is basically a failure. If you claim to be a wiki yellow pages, yet in half a year you barely manage to have a thousand entries, you have obviously failed. It's a matter of critical mass, really. In my opinion, we've given it a chance, and it didn't work out. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any validity in your view to the idea that if it IS a failure, it's a significant enough one to merit an article because it's a failure (or failure in progress), or about why it failed? (that's a vastly different article than what's there now of course, and of course there's the argument that we're not HBR and if it never crossed the notability threshold, who cares?). Also the linkspamming, according to Uncle G, stopped, is there any chance those ones you found are old?. Also do you agree that transwikification and the resource impact is not relevant to the AfD per se? (I'm just full of a bunch of questions) ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting points... it is certainly possible that things are notable because they are failures (the list of 100 worst movies comes to mind, they're certainly more notable than your average movie). However, I see no reason to evidence that it would apply in this case, given the vast amount of projects that start and stop on the internet on a daily basis. All of the media links in the article appear to be NN blogs. Second, while it's certainly possible that some of the linkspam was old, I see some evidence of promoting this site on Wikipedia less than a month ago. The issue of transwikefaction seems to be irrelevant to people's reasons for deleting or keeping. It's not a large drain on our servers, but on the other hand stocking a site with Wikipedia rejects isn't really going to help that site's quality (and the existence of such a "junkyard" site might encourage people to remove items from Wikipedia - we get the occasional call to delete e.g. star wars articles because they're already on the star wars wiki, and we don't want that influence). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very few articles are added to Yellowikis from the AfDs every week - we aren't simply a dump for deleted articles. We have big plans and we certainly haven't "failed" - we are still active and growing. I must admit though that compared to Radiant!'s article on the Biggest ball of twine we aren't really notable. --Yellowikis Admin 01:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * stocking a site with Wikipedia rejects isn't really going to help that site's quality &mdash; Actually, articles like and  can be refactored into useful Yellowikis content.  the existence of such a "junkyard" site might encourage people to remove items from Wikipedia &mdash;  Yellowikis is definitely not a junkyard for deleted articles, never has been, and has no intention of becoming one.  There are articles that come to AFD that I, for one, don't copy to Yellowikis, because they will be of no use to it whatsoever (i.e. they contain nothing even remotely resembling Yellow Pages information for the company).  we get the occasional call to delete e.g. star wars articles because they're already on the star wars wiki &mdash; The argument that Yellowikis will promote the same is flawed.  The calls to delete simple business directory articles from Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a telephone directory, existed long before Yellowikis did. Now, at least, we can point to a wiki that is a Yellow Pages. &#9786; Uncle G 07:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Talking of junkyards for deleted Wikipedia articles, such a site is coming. I'm saying no more for now. --kingboyk 20:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)