Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki (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 delete and redirect to List of wikis as it is not the subject of multiple independent non-trivial mentions in published works. WjBscribe 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

While this was nominated a year ago with a no-consensus result. A few months after that, it was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki (2nd nomination). 2 months ago, the page was restored, but as a redirect to the list of wikis. Today, the article was restored. I do not have access to deleted content, so I'm not sure if this is speediable or not. However, there is a big WP:COI in that the article creator is a CreationWiki admin. Previous community consensus decided this topic was NN, and I do not believe an admin from the cite in question can judge accurately that the notability has changed since then. There are also no 3rd party sources supplied that mention CreationWiki. Andrew c 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why we can't have an informative article for CreationWiki as well as EvoWiki. Could you patiently explain to me why a CreationWiki article is inappropriate? Thank you!--Ajoust 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask you to take a look at the previous successful nomination. Arguments used are WP:WEB. The article has no 3rd party sources, doesn't explain its notability.-Andrew c 15:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to list of wikis. dab (𒁳) 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as repost of deleted material and tagged as such. NeoFreak 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete they remain NN. No objection to an article if they ever do become N, but the article itself says its still in the early stages of construction. DGG 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Regular delete and/or redirect to List of wikis, speedy declined as it sadly isn't a repost of deleted material. Does not meet WP:WEB and there is a serious WP:COI problem here. --Coredesat 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but I see no reason why sites that fail WP:WEB cannot be redirects to "list of websites" articles. dab (𒁳) 08:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe CreationWiki deserves its own article (although I'm opposed to their views). CreationWiki also attacks Wikipedia by claiming that the recurring removal indicates a hatred and therefore lack of NPOV towards CreationWiki [1]. Riki 14:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A website not liking Wikipedia isn't a reason to keep an article on it if it doesn't meet notability guidelines and has problems with COI. --Coredesat 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree (and was going to say something similar). Also, I started going through the List of wikis and checking Alexa scores. I haven't been through the whole list yet, but through the first 40 or so listed, there was only one that had a lower Alexa score, and that was ZineWiki (note how the article, though, has many independent sources cited). Wikible also has a lower Alexa score, but doesn't have an article. I know Alexa scores aren't everything, and I know I haven't gone through the whole list yet, but it really seems like CreationWiki isn't notable.-Andrew c 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it was mentioned by Wired magazine. Jazzman123 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the WP:WEB criteria more closely #1 states The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Wired is a single source. We do not have multiple sources. Furthermore, if we read the Wired article, all it says is "there's also CreationWiki, an encyclopedia of creation science written from a Christian perspective. While CreationWiki remains mostly unscathed by the web's parodists, Conservapedia has..." Is this anything but trivial?-Andrew c 23:30, 2 May 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.