Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikIran (2nd 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 as a non-notable website per WP:WEB and lacking in reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 11:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikIran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A non-notable wiki with 600 article. There is not even a single reliable source discussing it. The only thing they have is being linked by a couple of Iranian directory sites.

It claims that "Articles by WikIran continue to be mirrored, referenced, and copied by various other sources such as factbites.com." But factbites.com is a search engine! Being indexed by a search engine also does not make one notable.

This article was nominated before, but it was kept only because the Iranian crowd voted en-masse keep, disregarding the policy on "reliable sources". bogdan 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Strong delete, as it fails WP:WEB and other criteria for inclusion. Simply because it runs on MediaWiki software does not count as notability. From the references provided, we have:

1. The website itself, cited as a reference!?
2. This... thing which doesn't even mention WikIran anywhere.
3. A reference for Iranian.com being a large website, which doesn't look very reliable either because it is only a first-party claim.
4. This other... thing which doesn't look too reliable either.
5. And factbites.com which, being a search engine, is capable of finding any website you want it to, if you try hard enough.

Ergo, it seems to fail inclusion criteria since it has not reliable outside sources and must be deleted per WP:NOT#IINFO. Axem Titanium 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero reliable sources, fails WP:V. Resolute 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB, and the fact it uses MediaWiki software is not an indicator of notability per se: also, this article lacks referencing, reliable sources, and no verifiable sources. Until these can be provided, there is no assertion of notability yet. --SunStar Net^talk 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SunStar Net. It appears to be a simple fork of Wikipedia, which makes me doubtful that it will have multiple independant third-party reliable sources to fufill WP:WEB and WP:V. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Srong Keep "WikIran" is a notable website, it was featured on the most notable English-language Iranian media outlet Iranian.com, and several Iranian newspapers with multi-million copy circulations such as Shargh. The term "WikIran" generats thousands of Google hits, that's notbility in itself. [1] --Mardavich 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Google hits aren't really a notable gauge of notability or verifiability. Doing a more complex search eliminates web boards, wikipedia itself, a few pollution-spam sites, and mirror sites, and while it's still around 1500, again, ghits aren't necessarily notable. But, you do mention the other news sources. It's worth a shot, but it may run afoul of WP:LOCAL. I'm not prejudiced to deletion, but it does need to meet standards. --Dennisthe2 03:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Shargh article? When?! That newspaper is available online (although it has been closed monthes ago!). Put a link to that article, I don't beleive it exists with no direct link. Hessam 10:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Please change my mind. --Dennisthe2 03:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Mardavich--Sa.vakilian 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Google hits do not beget notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a wiki is not itself a claim to notability. This page's sources are minimal, and the wiki itself has only 57 registered users. --Metropolitan90 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Wikiran's content is licensed under the GFDL similar to Wikipedia, it is not like Wikiran's owners are making any profit of it. I dont understand why would you want to delete an article about a constructive FREE encyclopedia. - Marmoulak 06:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing the merits of the site or its owners, we're discussing whether it's notable enough. yandman 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And it isn't. Delete. yandman 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per the nom and Axem Titanium. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Even Iranian.com removed link to this small wiki.[2]. What are you talking about anymore? Hessam 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's not true. Iranian.com has not removed the link to WikIran, the link is where it should be, in the November archive. --Mardavich 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. So it's a simple link. Could all websites that has been linked there have and article on wikipedia? I think it's better we archive it too. Hessam 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As stated in many AfDs, WP:WEB is not policy and notability criteria are subjective at best. What some others view as notable, others may not. Clearly there is a strong reaction against this wiki and other wikis such Wikinfo and Wipipedia. I find this disheartening, as many of the people involved with these wikis are most likely strong Wikipedia contributors and thus a frequent exchange between wikis as regards information is inevitable. metaspheres 11:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  WP:WEB may not be a policy, but Verifiability certainly is a core policy. bogdan 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not subjective. WP:WEB is full of Objective measures. Show me that it passes ANY. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:WEB, no substantial third party coverage. Note this AN discussion which alleges that the operators of this wiki abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Incidentally... a POV fork of the entire encyclopedia? I'm not optimistic about the quality of the result, but maybe it will improve Wikipedia's quality if POV warriors (should there be any around here, I haste to add) migrate there. Sandstein 11:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you guys ever get tired of the bad faith assumptions? The discussion you referenced so far isn't much of a discussion, but a series of allegations made by Hessam, and some inquiries from others. From what I can see of wikIran, there is nothing to suggest that it's a "POV fork" similar to Wikinfo or Citizendium. Many of the articles there look original to the site, and I see no evidence of "POV-warrior" edits there. I suggest that you and others tone it down big time. Like I told another editor on a different AfD, this is a dicussion, not a vicious circle, and your attitude, and the attitude of others displayed here which would frighten away the casual reader, is not conducive to the spirit of Wikipedia. metaspheres 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep --Rayis 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  _{User has less than 50 edits---J.S ^(T/C) 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

• Strong Delete--Sina 12:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per the impressive vote by Axem Titanium. Multiple non-trivial third-party references from reliable major sources, anyone? No, thought not. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, come back when you established yourself as a notable wiki. --Conti|✉ 15:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some non-trivial reliable secondary sources can be found... ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per Mardavich. Also, none of the reasons given for the deletion of this article are "good enough" reasons.Azerbaijani 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "good enough" reason, then? --Conti|✉ 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Azerbaijani and Mardavich--Pejman47 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see no reason for deleting it. Tājik 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The website contains information that can enrich WP.--Zereshk 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It looks notable enough to be kept. I agree wiht Tajik, there is no reason to delete it.Gol 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Gzkn 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There is also armeniapedia and other such links through Wikipedia. Also the article was nominated for deletion once and it was voted to keep. I am sure if there is nth deletion trial, it will be deleted by some users who might have other intentions. --alidoostzadeh 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I see no reason to delete either.--Nightryder84 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB miserably. no amount of "Keep"s can circumvent that fundamental fact. the iranian.com ref provided is merely a one-lined advertisement, and thus trivial coverage. ghits alone is not a reliable indicator of notability. ITAQALLAH 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable page.Nokhodi 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, the article is not used for advertisement, and WikIran is becoming, although slowly, more popular. The article can improve significantly, It doesn't have to be deleted. --04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: this user had been solicited to "vote Keep" on this AfD by User:Marmoulak [3]. ITAQALLAH 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF I was going to change my vote, although i see this comment. Whether you think I was solicited or not, I'm going to give my vote. And yes Keep IF the article is going to be cleaned up. I mean the references are ridiculous. You can't say the website "Iranian.com" is the biggest online community of Iranians in N.A Because the website itself stats so. Or that WikIran is important because WikIran says so. I believe that WikIran is significant in a way, but the article in Wikipedia is not. --Arad 04:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There is a double-standard here. By some peoples standards here, Wikispecies and Wikiversity and Persian Wikipedia and Kurdish Wikipedia cannot have articles here, but since they are Wikimedia sites, I guess the rules don't apply, yes? But like another editor says here those rules are not "rules" but guidelines and they are viewed in a different ways by different editors. From what I see, it is notable and significant project as others have shown especially as it is the only Iranian wiki. On the Admin Noticeboard it is interesting to note that someone suggests that WP and WikIran have "interwiki" and then when he finds out that WikIran is not Wikimedia, says that since it is not an "official wiki" (whatever that means) that any links to WikIran are "wiki-spam" and should be "nuked". That's very nice, but is a hostile attitude and I agree with others who say that this is against the spirit of Wikipedia. I am 100% sure that most people on WP do not agree with attacking other wikis or editors because they are involved with other wikis or add links to other wikis. If an article on a wiki is sourced and has references, there should be no problem. A site like WP is no more or less reliable than a site like WikIran. I have looked at articles on WikIran and they have just as many sources as WP articles and alot of them use the Encyclopedia Iranica as a source. I see good arguments for and against but the people against look more concerned with attacking the project and its editors and mocking them than anything else. I have been on WP awhile and I don't care how anyone wants to justify it, but those are personal attacks and just because its against another wiki or off-wiki editors doesn't make it right. Also the nominator is incorrect in saying that WP:RS is a policy - it is a guideline. Like I am saying there is a double-standards here. Khorshid 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...the people against look more concerned with attacking the project and its editors and mocking them than anything else. I have been on WP awhile and I don't care how anyone wants to justify it, but those are personal attacks and just because its against another wiki or off-wiki editors doesn't make it right." Please don't make sweeping, ad-hominem accusations like that. Registering a delete !vote = a personal attack? Take a closer look at WP:NPA. Gzkn 05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to make my comment and the comments here speak for themselves. Again there should be no double-standards so when you say "don't make ad hominem" accusations you should really be telling that to others who are actually making such accusations. There is clearly a problem when others attacks and accusations are overlooked and any criticism of those attacks and accusations are written off. Khorshid 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please take into account the basic rule that the existence of a non-notable article does not justify the existence of all similar articles. I'm going to nominate "Kurdish Wikipedia" and "Persian Wikipedia" for deletion as non-notable per WP:WEB. Could people !voting please limit themselves to the argument in question: Have there been multiple, non trivial, references to WikIran in the press? We're not asking whether this is a good site, we're asking whether anyone knows about it. yandman 08:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep To delete an article about a wiki in a country with such controversial importance implies to be a suggestion of possible unrecognized and unconscious bias. DGG 08:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. - Francis Tyers · 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Petition accepted doesn't meet WP:WEB, recreate when/if it does. - Francis Tyers · 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say it like it is: "Dr. Lukas Pietsch's petition accepted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.132.11 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Hasn't there already been a debate and vote on this? What has changed since the last time?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Some of those voting to keep the article last time did so on the basis that there were precedents for such Wikimedia-related articles on Wikipedia, notably Armeniapedia. But now I see that they have been removed from Wikipedia.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable enough and I agree with user:khorshid. Behaafarid 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really think so? I thought you would pay more attention to guidelines. Comparing with other articles is the right way to decide? Hessam 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I voted keep last time on the basis that there were articles on similar Wikimedia projects. Now that these articles are deleted and WikIran is still not yet notable, I have changed my mind.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. This Wikipedia could be just as notable as any other. Sr13 (T|C) 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failure of WP:WEB. Yuser31415 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There are loads of wikis listed in wikipedia (please see List_of_wikis) and I'm sure if the same scrutiny was applied to them, most them should have been deleted. This wiki is not less notable than any of those. Mahanchian 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing with other non-notable articles is your best reason. That's interesting. Start creating AfD for them instead. Hessam 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Small wikis that don't meet WP:WEB aren't notable. I worry that a simple Google search isn't valid to establish notability due to alledged spam on Wikipedia (according to WP:AN). I also think that due to the notablity of the Wikimedia Foundation, any contrast to something like Wikispecies is unfair - I believe a less-notable product by a bigger company is worthy of an article over a small product by a small company (if that makes sense). -Halo 07:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB and noting WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried to make the article include some verifiable information, but not much can be said about it except that it's a wiki that tries to say good things about Iran/Persia. The claims in the article are overstated (It may be between Iranica and Wikipedia, who says that? They are mentioned twice in two Iranian websites, so what?), and several of the keep votes above seem to be by Iranians who perhaps founded it or moved there after not being able to push their views in the English Wikipedia itself. roozbeh 14:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep per sahaban15.45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Per yourself? --Conti|✉ 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per what?! :D _{This user has less than 50 edits either} It seems that vote spamming started again.Hessam 16:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Halo. Pepsidrinka 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For those who doesn't know where some of these votes come from I suggest reading this. I didn't want to mention it until this vote has submited. Hessam 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I hope that !votes from new and anonim users who do not provide any valid arguments would be ignored by the closing admin. On the other hand, lets not resurface meatpuppeting allegiations of 9 months ago. 9 months is aloms an infinity on wiki. Alex Bakharev 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy the subject does not seems to meet WP:WEB yet, but obviously it is dear to many good editors. It could also be put into the Portal:Iran space. I hope it is not an Iranian variant of Encyclopedia Dramatica with personal attacks Alex Bakharev 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have looked through their site and could not find any discussions of our wiki or its editors, just Iranian topics with more Iranian perspective than here and some internal policy discussions. Alex Bakharev 03:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per other users including Mahanchian and Khorshid who states correctly that Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Persian Wikipedia, Kurdish Wikipedia, etc. have articles here but are not being deleted though according to people like Bogdan, Hessam, Roozbeh they would not be "notable". Roozbeh, in a bad faith claim, says "Iranians who perhaps founded it or moved there after not being able to push their views in the English Wikipedia itself." I ask, where is the POV pushing? Where on that site you will find people "pushing" views? Hessam [4] and Roozbeh have attacked Zereshk, made the false claim that he owns the site, and attacked the site itself like a couple of other people here and making claims with no evidence like "POV fork" and "POV-warring". I agree that this is not the "Wikipedia way". Khodavand 03:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then see what has been removed just after this AfD started. [5] Hessam 09:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and then see this [6]. You were warned against that twice yet you continue to use vulgarity in reference to WikIran and making false claims against me this time. You are not fooling anyone. Khodavand 10:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:WEB. Also it should be noted that the existence of other articles that fail WP:WEB simply means that we have more work to do in removing articles written about non-notable websites, not that we should therefore include another one instead. ju66l3r 06:24, 7 January 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.