- 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. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 05:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No citations or references. Has turned into a list of software rather than a description of distinct features. Article was recently turned into a redirect, but I think it at least deserves a chance at an AfD first. Perey (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article needs citations and further expansion but is useful and informative, just as an outline is, and it is not the sort of thing that's easy to find on the web; it also has most all relevant data gathered into one non-commercial place. It is also not a simple link-farm. Offhand, I can think of a hundred solo-business people who would find the article very helpful. Sctechlaw (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S., just had a look at page views for this article: 16,580 times in the last 90 days — Sctechlaw (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC) (fix typo) Sctechlaw (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: I just took about 20 minutes to Google the phrase and add some cites. User Perey could have done this instead of nomming this article for deletion and would have saved everyone else's time. Do it yourself next time. Sctechlaw (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And a good day to you too. ☺ Me, I couldn't tell which were suitable primary sources, and which were just using the words "personal" and "wiki" together without establishing it as a genuine term of art. I bow to your superior discernment in matters of WP:SOURCES. -- Perey (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mea culpa for short-temper'dness, but in the last week I've seen multiple AFD noms which could have been resolved with readily-available cites if the nominator simply took the time to seek them out, instead, others did the work, which is most vexing. The article still needs many more cites, and better cites too, but it is worth saving — especially considering the number of views it gets. It seems to me that if there is a long-standing article on WP with many page-views, even if it lacks cites, the better approach would be to first try to improve the article rather than condemning it to oblivion without such an effort. Sctechlaw (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for what it's worth, I thought an AfD would be a way to discuss the saving or deletion of this article, in contrast with the redirection that had already condemned it to oblivion. If the citations you've added do withstand scrutiny (personally I have doubts about the two LifeHacker "personal Wikipedia" ones, which neither establish "personal wiki" as a term of art nor describe anything but a locally-hosted MediaWiki) and the article is kept, I'll consider it a success (while crediting you for doing the legwork). -- Perey (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: I just took about 20 minutes to Google the phrase and add some cites. User Perey could have done this instead of nomming this article for deletion and would have saved everyone else's time. Do it yourself next time. Sctechlaw (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I personally found this article useful, yes it needs cleaning up but it has the potential to be a great resource on the subject (top google result, as always). Personal wikis are a great tool and I'm sure this page helps inform and spread their use. --will.pimblett 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimms1 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: I agree, I really do; "personal wiki" seems like it should be a real category of software, and we should cover it. But the fact is that right now the article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. No matter how useful it is, it's out of scope (WP:NOT, WP:OR), unless and until someone can prove (with citations) that "personal wiki" is a genuine term in the software industry or market. It's been de facto deleted once already, by being turned into a redirect. If an AfD can't attract enough opposition, then that redirect should become official. -- Perey (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2012 (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.