Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LA Wiki

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Fram (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA Wiki[edit]

LA Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Tried CSD, was declined, but I think the decline was in error. This meets A7, as the article makes no effort to assert notability. It's likely because there isn't any. I ran several Google searches trying to find anything about it and came up with zilch. I think this paragraph from the site itself says it all: "There are 169 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about The LA Wiki, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 6 pages that are probably legitimate content pages." If that's "one of the 27 largest City Wikis in the world" (as the author claims on the talk page), I shudder to think what the others look like. Gromlakh (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I missed this when I posted it, but it also appears the author has a conflict of interest. The article lists the owner of LA Wiki as "Andrew Tutt", the same as the author's username. Gromlakh (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's just an advert. Srpnor (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:WEB. No evidence that there has been non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 14:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:WEB. The LA Wiki is not ready to promote itself anywhere given its extreme lack of content. Furthermore, someone knowledgeable about GFDL should bring to the attention of the powers that be at Wikipedia that LA Wiki's article on Los Angeles was apparently copied from Wikipedia's Los Angeles, California without proper attribution under GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia has never enforced GFDL licensing - I think the content is safe. By the time of any sort of suit, the article will likely already fall into the domain of fair use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.78.87 (talk • contribs)
      • I am not advocating a lawsuit against the owner of LA Wiki, but certainly it should be made known to the relevant parties that most of LA Wiki's substantive content (three of the five articles) violates GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as current version, it makes several assertions of notability (...LA Wiki is the fastest-growing city wiki in the United States...also runs on the MediaWiki framework, one of the first City Wiki's to employ the scaleable technology behind Wikipedia) but lacks any secondary sources to confirm this. The first point, if well sourced, would establish notability in my mind, but now it's just an empty promise. Level it! WLU (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above and nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - if it went from 13 articles to the current 169 in one year, it will have had a 1200% annual growth rate, which might well be the fastest-growing city wiki in the U.S., or even the world. That does not necessarily mean it's notable. Argyriou (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If only ... the LA Wiki actually has only five content pages now. [1] Its mainspace consists of those, two redirects, its Main Page, and an empty portal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - COI or no, substantiated or no, I find it hard to justify the inclusion of articles about any other city wiki that meet the criteria outlined above. Take DavisWiki - page was created by user with COI, and does not cite neutral sources for assertions of notability. Basically, this deletion is the assertion of a double standard. However, since logic does not trump ignorant voting, it will likely be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.78.87 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - WP:WAX; other articles are completely irrelevant to the deletion of this one. Feel free to nominate those articles for deletion. WLU (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This is not WP:WAX - these articles were kept b/c they make assertions of notability that reference themselves. Comparison is to reasons for keeping them, not that they exist. All LA Wiki has to do is assert notability for itself and it will survive this process Re: other city wikis which do just that. (See paragraph 1 of WP:Other Stuff Exists) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.78.87 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the criteria require more than just an assertion of notability. If an article about web content does not even assert a claim to notability, the article can be speedily deleted under criteria for speedy deletion, criterion A7. LA Wiki does assert a claim to notability so it is safe from speedy deletion. However, if the article claims that the web content is notable but the claim cannot be verified through reliable sources, the article may be deleted pursuant to a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is what we are doing now for LA Wiki. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LA_Wiki&oldid=1142216011"