Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis (5th 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 Keep - non admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowikis

Article about a long dead website which generated a couple of speculative articles when it was sued. Wikinews covered the event; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. akaDruid (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notice this article has (barely) survived several previous votes, and the only major argument for keeping is the media coverage - but that was only speculation and crystalballing by newspapers, a kind of "Wouldn't it be nice if we were the first to report on the phenomenon of the yellow pages being replaced by a wiki?", an event which of course never actually happened. Predicting the demise of virtually everything (including themselves) is a popular hobby for newspapers, and each iteration can hardly justify another article. akaDruid (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article is kept, it should be revised to indicate that Yellowikis is a former web site and now apparently defunct. Apparently it has been offline now for a year and a half. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability does not expire. See Category:Defunct websites for other examples. --Dhartung | Talk 14:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources for this defunct wiki appear to be blogs and the like. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the subject lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable and independent third party publishers. End of story. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are the ones appropriate for the subject DGG (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic, verifiable. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You know, this is the fifth attempt at killing the article. I think we may learn something from the first, second, third and fourth attempts. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable and non-trivial publications were cited in the first, second, third, and fourth attempts? All I see are blogs and Wikinews articles. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the most recent previous AFD was a bad-faith sockpuppet nomination, I don't see any reason to dispute the keep votes that were cast back then. And it has BBC News and Guardian sources. That establishes the notability. 23skidoo (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was very brief notability - in a historical context I would say it has lost its meaning - As per WP:NOT#NEWS: News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. How about merging the most interesting bits to Yellow Pages? akaDruid (talk) 19:40, 23 May 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.