Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (7th 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 delete. Recreation, not even with the same amount of content, userfied some time ago -> deleting this one. Tone 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (7th nomination)
- Wikinfo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article has been removed trough AFD before around a year ago - Currently has no indication of notability, context et all. We still have an old version of it here. AFD to see if consensus on this article changed since the last removal. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Truely Neutral, Only nominating for establishing new concensus, no personal opinion. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt as re-creation of AFD'd article. andy (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previous AFD is a year old, so i doubt it qualifies for either a G4 tag or salting. Consensus and notability could have changed in the mean time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that after seven AFDs and seven recreations in three years it's time to slam the door shut. What could possibly be in the article that overcame the objects in six previous AFDs? (Is that a record?) andy (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previous AFD is a year old, so i doubt it qualifies for either a G4 tag or salting. Consensus and notability could have changed in the mean time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on the current state of the article... it cites A) Wikipedia and B) Wikinfo. At some point we decided to stop including this article just because it was related to Wikipedia, accepting that to do so was bias. So unless there are new sources, which there's no evidence of, it needs to stay deleted. And honestly, should go through WP:DRV not AFD. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I have tagged this for speedy deletion as it simply doesn't assert any importance. It probably falls under the "no context" speedy deletion criteria too. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Declining speedy deletion, unless/until consensus to speedy is reached at AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? It meets the criteria as far as I can tell... this AFD is unneeded process. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I have tagged this for speedy deletion as it simply doesn't assert any importance. It probably falls under the "no context" speedy deletion criteria too. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Non-consensus-based recreation that does not address points brought up in prior AFD.--WaltCip (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2009 (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.