Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiversity (3rd 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. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity

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

This article was previously deleted, recreated, and renominated, which failed not due to any of the keep votes making sense, but because of the large number of them by people who seem to think that a Wikimedia project is notable. This website fails all three criteria of WP:WEB:

• The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • All references in the article are from Wikimedia.
• The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
  • No Webbys or the like here.
• The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
  • Wikimedia is well known, but it is not independent of Wikiversity.
    
    

Let me also refute the (rather weak) arguments from the previous nomination:

• "Please. This will be used to create lesson for students." (unsigned)
  • We don't have an article on Excel gradebook templates, but those also can be used to, er, 'create lesson for students'.
• ":D This is a great idea." (User:AI, now banned); "good idea" (User:Vikings)
  • So is, as User:Weyes said, a combined nose hair trimmer and coffeemaker.
• "This takes up very little space and may help someone find their way to the Wikibooks area." (User:DS1953); "It is not listed as a project on the front page. How would anyone know about the nascent project if there is no article about its development?" (User:Blainster)
  • See these three sections of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a directory; and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
• "It seems like a serious project so why shouldn't it have its own entry." (unsigned)
  • My nephew's recent science fair was a serious project, too.

This fledgling project, while interesting, does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. Delete and redirect to Wikibooks. ElbridgeGerry t c block 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If we do delete the article, please consider that the main utility of these "project-related articles" is for Wikipedia/Wikimedia users - don't delete the page outright, but leave a cross-wiki redirect page to Wikiversity, or a meta page on the project, or something similar. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We could redirect to a subsection in the Wikibooks article. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that it is part of Wikimedia, and is an associate of Wikipedia (not just another group that happen to use MediaWiki, or any pages in Wikia), shows that despite being possibly non-notable among the world wide web, is a unique special cases. The purpose of Wikiversity can be seen as a unique fork for special interests, completely different from Wikibooks and Wikipedia. Also, it is completely different from Wikibooks (and hence the creation of wikiveristy). if you have to redirect, it will be to Wikimedia; redirecting to Wikibooks will only confuse people. Lastly, I am sure that as of now, any Wikimedia project related group (eg Jimbo wales and Wikibooks) for example are automatically excluded from normal judging criteria and is automatically demmed notable in Wikipedia. George Leung 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Furthermore, the first delete is due to nonexistence; But now that it is created with the blessing of wikimedia, it is clearly notable enough in Wikipedia, under a special cases circumstances.George Leung 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Just do a Google Scholar search for mentions in notable publications. Chronicle of Higher Education ([1]) is enough? If not, there is also academic journal (Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, [2]), and conference paper (International Symposium On Wikis, [3]) mentioning this project.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. We can safely assume that if it is a Wikimedia project, it is famous. Or it will be famous. Or something. Not based on any guidelines or anything, but I'd say that Wikimedia's projects should get some coverage - I'm not so sure on individual language editions, but the primary ones should be notable enough. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Google has about 512,000 results for "Wikiversity". This is five times as many results as there is for, for example, crust punk, which has its own Wikipedia article. This is more than enough results to make this notable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheguX (talk • contribs).
• Another important note: WP:IAR.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs).
• Keep I agree with the others who vote to keep it. --Remi 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep. With over 500 links to the Wikiversity page from other Wikipedia articles, it is useful to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia community. Although Wikiversity was "incubated" at Wikibooks, it is better to leave this as its own page rather than re-direct it to Wikibooks. --JWSchmidt 13:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• I invoke WP:SNOW and close it 142.58.101.27 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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.