Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiIndex

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 redirect to List of wikis#WikiIndex. Consensus is to delete or redirect, including among votes which were submitted after some additional citations were added early in this debate. Among such comments, the consensus leans towards a redirect or merge rather than a deletion. ST47 (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiIndex

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, with virtually no coverage in pertinent sources. Largoplazo (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. No in-depth, independent, reliable coverage. Fails WP:NORG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC) PS. I like the idea of soft delete to list of wikis as proposed below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only 2 relevant sources in terms of "notability" (as Wikipedia uses the term) are ref #3 and ref #11. The rest are simple listings or self-published. But ref #3 is also just a passing mention. And ref #11 uses the index briefly as a primary source in 2 short sentences, but has no in-depth coverage about the topic itself (and the article misquotes the dissertation with snippets instead of using a full quotation in context). GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete At the very least redirect--this doesn't demand deletion: it's a plausible search term as it's an important wiki in the WikiSphere and there is nothing compelling for deletion about a WP:COPYVIO or WP:OFFICE issue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC) I say keep now. Seems substantially referenced. What do others think? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WOOD I am here actually because I just uploaded File:Internal Error 630f6222.png and wanted to make sure my attribution link was directing to the right page. List of wikis#WikiIndex would be a good link to. I do worry about a lot of outside links because of the importance this page has on a technical level for outside wikis. Just my two-cents. Redirects are cheap afterall. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Updated below. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MJL: Not sure that I understand the problem of attribution: if you have [[WikiIndex]] and it's deleted on en.wp how is that different than having (e.g.) http://wikiindex.org/wiki/MainPage and that URI goes down at some point in the future? I mean, this is just something that happens with URIs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Koavf: I probably worded that weird. I don't mean it's required for attribution, but I meant to say like non-WMF wikis might have incoming links and such. My main point is that redirects are cheap, and this one might be worth it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Might help in future Stalin Sunny^Talk2Me 09:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the topic gets deleted as non-notable it will probably also be deleted from related lists (per WP:CSC). Just mentioning it for clarity: non-notable topics are usually not included in large lists without some clear evidence of likely notability - the very point this discussion has failed to provide yet. The topic's alleged "importance" has not been verified (see also WP:ILIKEIT). GermanJoe (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I have added, since the beginning of this deletion discussion, three academic references to the topic (WikiIndex#Advancement and scope of the project). I would also like to note that I (article creator) have no connection to WikiIndex. If a decision is made to redirect, I would think it wise to redirect to Ray King (entrepreneur) (one of the founders, the only one with a dedicated wikipedia article) rather than List of wikis, so as to include more of the content, and keep WikiIndex as an entry in List of wikis, just like other wikis in the list such as Scratch Wiki which don't have a dedicated article but redirect. In any case I'll try to add a paragraph on WikiIndex to Ray King (entrepreneur) in the coming days. Fa suisse (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo, 94rain, Piotrus, CAPTAIN RAJU, GermanJoe, MJL, Stalinsunnykvj, and Piotrus: Not sure if this will change anyone's !vote but take a look at it now: Fa suisse has some decent citations. More of an edge case now in my estimation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (pinged) - even after all the good-faith improvements the article has only 1 good source, Klobas' short description of the Wiki in ref #11. Everything else are passing mentions or other thin - only loosely-related - sources. Being academic is not enough, sources to establish notability need to be reliable and in-depth covering the topic itself. The suggested redirect to a short mention in King's bio might be a better solution. The topic is certainly noteworthy enough for a mention in a related article, even if it's not fully notable for a stand-alone article (per Wiki's definition). GermanJoe (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged as well but wanted to wait for someone else more insightful to comment before I did. I agree King's bio is a good choice for this to redirect to per the reasons outlined above. I was not too impressed with the new sources in all honesty, but since I had no access I had to only go based off the abstracts (which don't mention WikiIndex). (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - replying to the two above comments : in my opinion, the best source is A.G.West's PhD thesis (2013, vs Klobas' 2006 book; freely accessible at https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1974&context=edissertations), which uses WikiIndex as a resource to provide statistics on and demonstrate diversity of wikis. Fa suisse (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm tempted by MJL's suggestion of a redirect to List of wikis#WikiIndex, but that is a list of notable wikis. Closing as redirect is tantamount to declaring it non-notable and will result in the list entry being removed. That will just leave a worthless redirect that will likely be eventually deleted. SpinningSpark 18:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of lack of significant references in 3rd party sources. Clnreee (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of wikis. No need to this non-notable article as it lacks third party, reliable sources. Masum Reza^📞 23:39, 23 June 2019 (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.