Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis (4th 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 speedy keep as a bad faith nomination supported by a sock-puppet, with no other editors opining delete. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowikis[edit]

Yellowikis was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-02. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis (old).

Yellowikis was nominated for deletion again on 2005-10-07. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis 2.

Yellowikis was nominated for deletion yet again on 2006-01-15. The result of the discussion was "no consensus; keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis.

Utterly non-notable wiki, no sources. Wyington Duarm 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, altohugh this nom is mis-spelled. Anyway, it has no claims to notability other than a legal dispute, and seems to have no reliable secondary sources. The only thing notable about the legal dispute was the mentioned in BBC News. It is not notable, so delete per nom. Mynglestine 03:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reliable sources … apart from the 10 such sources that are actually cited in the article, do you mean? Uncle G 11:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The website is a notable wiki, which made headlines internationally and has legal ramifications which are ongoing. I am very much opposed to removing this article.David Cannon 12:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Davidcannon.--Edtropolis 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Article already has tons of sources in respectable media. Evouga 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep, article is well sourced and subject seems notable enough. More information on the "legal ramifications" could be added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This may be a bad faith nomination: in an account created only yesterday, nom's put up several articles for deletion. There may also be sockpuppetry at work; User:Mynglestine is likewise a near-SPA, and has strangely (and solely) chimed in on all nom's recent AfDs. RGTraynor 18:05, 20 June 2007 (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.