Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of wiki hosting services

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 merge‎ to Wiki hosting service. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of wiki hosting services[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Comparison of wiki hosting services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For an initial personal disclaimer, I am not a Wikipedia regular but I am an editor on other wiki projects and wiki farms. If WP:PROMOTION is considered this page clearly reads like a promotional page and the criteria for comparison seems to be meant to allow readers to choose one of the services for their wiki - which is What Wikipedia is not. I do not see how this page can be read as anything else than a biased guide for users to choose their preferred wiki host for their project rather than an article that belongs on an encyclopedic project. What other purpose does this page realistically serve?

The title itself "Comparison of wiki hosting services" is very misleading as it should really be "Comparison of notable wiki hosting services" which does not make sense as an article anyway and does not seem to adhere to the spirit of WP:NPOV by selectively listing only wiki farms that already have a Wikipedia article. It is hard to see the usefulness of a page that compares an extremely limited amount of wiki hosting services. There is also a refusal to accept any non-notable companies themselves, even though this is permitted by this policy as I understand it.

The MediaWiki.org version is more complete and fair and I argue here that a page like this has nothing to do on Wikpedia and is better suited for MediaWiki.org only. JaredFForester (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is there a notability issue with the article? What you have brought up so far are issues that can be fixed without deletion (WP:Deletion is not cleanup) Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If they can be fixed I have not seen a willingness to do so. After my original edit was rejected I took a look at the history and uncovered a very frequent pattern of new users adding entries and them being removed on the basis that only notable ones are added even though as I have said in my deletion argument the way I understand the lists policy is that there is no such rule. JaredFForester (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — JaredFForester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are many comparisons of sites/software/services on Wikipedia. If different features/characteristics should be compared, that's something that can be addressed on the article talk page (or by just fixing it). Wikipedia has several kinds of lists. Most are lists of examples rather than exhaustive lists, and as such use some version of WP:N as criteria for which examples to include. I don't recall where it's documented, but there's definitely a preference against including the word "notable" in the article title, since it's kind of a jargon term on Wikipedia and because that's kind of the default. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the difference in those instances is that a lot of the non-notable ones are very niche and unused while in the case of wiki hosting services there are a lot of very popular wiki hosting services that are not mentioned. Also, some of the other lists do list companies/sites that do not have Wikipedia articles. I believe that in terms of wiki hosting there is a large number of alternative websites that are not listed and the page listing such a small number of hosting sites has little use. JaredFForester (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a valid navigational list and information list as well. Category:Wiki farms has additional things that can be added to it. Dream Focus 15:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is its encyclopedic value though? And I must disagree that it can be described as a valid list when it lists 5 'notable' wiki hosts while 100 exist. In other areas, such as search engines, the amount of other wiki hosts is negligible and they niche services. That is not true for the alternate wiki hosting services and if editors consider that this page should not be deleted I would still think the very least that could be done is allow the addition of other services even if they do not have standalone articles since there is no policy which explicitly disallows this practice. JaredFForester (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article previously had other things listed which don't have articles, someone erased them. It was previously six times larger. Dream Focus 11:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case if the outcome is to keep I would encourage an administrator to assert that there is no rule preventing listing non-notable articles. JaredFForester (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it only lists the notable ones so rename it to Comparison of notable wiki hosting services 72.94.190.201 (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This request for deletion seems to stem from your frustration that several of your edits to the article have been reverted. That sounds a bit like being a little bit sour rather than having an actual reason for the article being deleted. -- Original Authority (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right in that respect but the reason behind this is because I was surprised that it is necessary to have an existing article (which is not in any policy) in order to add it to the list. The reason I cite for opening this is exactly that. If there was no "only notable" rule invented specifically for this page there would be less of an argument for deletion. JaredFForester (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:CFORK or Draftify to revise the scope and cleanup the list.
Out of 5 listed services only Fandom (website) fits the description, the rest are examples of Groupware software. Out of these four groupware products only Confluence (software) and PBwiki have a secondary source that positions the software as a wiki hosting service:Sankar (2009). This source is extremely weak as it also calls Google Sites a 'structured wiki' (whatever that means), and refers to online spreadsheets and calendars as 'wikis' too. More importantly, when introducing the list it mentions wikimatrix.com, a defunct website that used to call mention of Confluence and other products on its list sponsored listings. The article in the current form is effectively a WP:CFORK of the List of collaborative software, featuring Confluence possibly because it was called a wiki hosting on a sponsored listing website.
I agree that 'only notable' is a reasonable criteria for inclusion in a navigational list that doesn't meet WP:NLIST criteria but, with apparently only 1 entry appropriately sourced, I'm failing to see the navigational value of this list. I'm hesitant of considering other alternatives for deletion as it's unclear what independent secondary sources can be used to clean it up. Category:Wiki farms proposed above simply repeats the sponsored listings from wikimatrix.com reprinted in the aforementioned Sankar (2009). Another source, referenced in the article, wikimatrix.org, is effectively a personal homepage and doesn't meet WP:RS requirements. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a partial merge with Wiki hosting service if it helps to form a consensus. PaulT2022 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete by only allowing 'options with pages' you automatically create, regardless if it is intentional or not, a promotion which is against Wikipedias rules. Comparisons in general on Wikipedia are in my opinion only justified when every well known party is included which is here clearly not. Other comparison sites work since all notable and important public parties are listed here where in this case its not. Additionally few points on this existing comparison are flawed and vague, as an example what do you exactly mean with "subdomain" (In POV of a user not knowing much). And additionally some points are straightly false and some are written like advertisements. So its better to delete it. G Utopia (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — G Utopia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It's not. That's standard for Wikipedia lists, and not what Wikipedia means by promotion. I note this AfD was opened by a single-purpose account attempting to add their own site to the list and created the deletion nomination when it was removed per standard procedure. Now it's attracting more single-purpose accounts to delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiTide is definitely not the nominator's "own site". SevenSpheres (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NLIST, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. While the current entries are no doubt biased in what seems an attempt to maintain a clear inclusion criteria (each entry having their own Wikipedia article), which could be revisited on a discussion on its talk page, I can see a clear informational value of the article as it is. The single-purpose account nature of the nominator who themselves agreed the nomination is in part due to frustration about being reverted, also makes the AfD nomination weaker. Work would be best spent, in my opinion, writing articles for other notable wiki farm services, which makes adding them to this list/comparison article less controversial. Darcyisverycute (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I'm not seeing a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thoughts: This list is very short, listing only five hosting services, and as PaulT2022 says it seems that of these, only Fandom is actually a wiki host as opposed to collaborative software, so there's arguably only one wiki host listed. I don't think this should be kept as is, leaving three options - either delete the list, partially merge it to Wiki hosting service (which is also short), or expand it to include more wiki hosts. In the latter case, it's unlikely that any other wiki host qualifies for a Wikipedia article, given that articles on at least two of the most popular, Miraheze and Wikidot, have been deleted for lack of notability in the past (some wikis hosted on these sites are notable but apparently not the hosting sites themselves, which makes sense). Additionally, MediaWiki.org already has a more complete list of MediaWiki hosting services specifically. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel like this has been said many times: "the content should be expanded" is not a delete rationale. "The content should be reduced" is not a delete rationale. "The article needs to be cleaned up" is not a delete rationale. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. jp×g🗯️ 20:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wiki hosting service. "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" even when notability isn't in doubt, and this seems like a good case for using that discretion: it doesn't help readers to keep a five-entry list separate from a four-paragraph article. Obviously this can be revisited if the combined article ever becomes so long a split is needed, but there's no prospect of that happening anytime soon (especially since the list is rightly being limited to entries with some modicum of notability). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep proposer seems to be arguing for a delete because it needs to be renamed (?) as well as admittedly having made this to be POINTy in one of the above replies DarmaniLink (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Extraordinary. Both articles are short and there seems to be no need for a separate article. Most “delete” !votes above seem to have invalid rationale. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as fair alternative to deletion. NavjotSR (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2024 (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/Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services&oldid=1195514392"