Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (3nd 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 still no consensus. Maybe by 2019? CycloneGU (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a digital aencyclopedia, but this aencyclopedia is not notable enough, it has been attacked by hax0rs from outspace several times with their DDoS Death Star system, it is also written like an advertisement and is a copyright violation from ebaumsworld where the contents have been ripped off without changing any word. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. Non-notable website, being one of the most visited websites on the Internet is not a indication of notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a reliable source. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Take it from the genius professors all over the world, Wikipedia is unreliable, anyone can edit it! --TitanOne (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It clearly exists, everything else matters. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion A website that call itself an encyclopedia and it is not, must die. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete on wheels! lSietf (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mergefusemixcombineblendify with Uncyclopedia -- 575 Rev olve 10:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Encyclopedia Dramatica. Guerillero | My Talk 11:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to truth. Having two separate articles is a obviously a content fork of truth and I'm amazed this even needs to be discussed. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has irreparable conflict of interest issues. Reach Out to the Truth 17:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because ILIKEIT, which is the only thing that really matters. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a non-notable fork of Nupedia. Mr. Wheely Guy (on wheels!) 23:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessively self-referential. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (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.