Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiNi

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiNi[edit]

Lacks notability Dandv (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dandv (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no notability Chzz ► 01:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean-up (adding sources) per precedent: the article is a fork of WakkaWiki. Other forks have been kept. Delete all, or keep this. Gosox5555 (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To clarify: This article does need more sources, but there are at least 2 out there. Sister-articles have been kept without sources, so fixing all or deleting all is our option. I think that it's worth fixing all of them, because there appear to be good sources. They just aren't cited. Gosox5555 (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per Gosox. If sufficient sources are findable to support an article then it's better to wait for these to be added (and re-evaluate the article then) rather than deleting now . Cynical (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "[T]here appear to be good sources. They just aren't cited." is not a valid argument. The article's only reference([1]) is completely inadequate. — Rankiri (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original contributor of the entry. I don't have strong views one way or the other about its retention. I do agree that it makes sense to treat the various forks consistently. Perhaps a longer description of each fork on the WakkaWiki article.Campingcar (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not about fairness and consistency. It is about systematizing and presenting the corpus of human knowledge as it actually is, and human knowledge is lumpy, spotty, unfair, and uneven. This article must stand and fall on the merits of its own subject, and if that subject is not a part of the corpus of human knowledge then it doesn't belong here, even if other similar subjects are part of the corpus of human knowledge. And vice versa, of course. So where are these "good sources" that you claim to exist? Cite them! Uncle G (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 31 July 2009 (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.