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 draftify and salt‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miraheze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

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)).

Deleted in 2021: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraheze. The sources are slightly better now as content is no longer entirely sourced to Miraheze sites, but the subject still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. The Website Planet blog post is not independent from the site (as required under WP:WEBCRIT), as it's based on the statements of the founder. Other references are mostly about individual wikis, to which WP:INHERITWEB applies. My WP:BEFORE didn't reveal anything more. —Alalch E. 11:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Alalch E. 11:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved out of draft space as an act of vandalism and not by a user who has shown previous interest in the article. It needs to be returned to draft space, not deleted. Rob Kam (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. Drafting and AfC pior to publication, in principle, are optional. Editors can move drafts to article space unilaterally. Editors who do this don't need to have been contributors to the draft. You don't WP:OWN the draft as someone who worked on it. When the article is deleted, you can ask for a WP:REFUND. Alternatively you may !vote to draftify.—Alalch E. 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of RS. I can't find anything beyond mentions of the thing. Appears to make a yearly appearance, only to get deleted, based on past deletion discussions. See you in 2024. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep borderline notable, could be improved, but borderline notable IMO Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Wikipedia itself has this listed in its recomended alternate wiki companies/farms. It is Well writen and well referenced, it does meet WP:GNG & WP:ORG. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – Return to draft namespace per WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:POTENTIAL. Start a deletion request for the draft if there is anything wrong with the article as-is in the draft namespace, per relevant draft policies. –Vipz (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Commenting on the unilateral move: it's useful to not keep to the "letter of the law" of policies sometimes and apply common sense. The vandal who moved the article from Draft: to mainspace was clearly doing random things they found they could do with the article before receiving a block. If not WP:VANDALISM judged on its own merit, it is at least very WP:DISRUPTIVE. –Vipz (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or move to draftspace if necessary. I would certainly cut down on the amount of primary sources, but the website seems to meet our SIGCOV guidelines based on what is provided. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Draftify Moved out of draft before ready, by a vandalism only account. Rob Kam (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning weak delete - just not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy WP:NCORP. The thing is, search results are full of noise, so if someone could provide the three best sources I'd be happy to take a look. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed that notability is borderline and could use more sources (if they even exist). However, I think the sourcing that does exist meets the minimum for notability. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Miraheze exists as a website and is growing in userage and thus notability. TheDarkEnigma2 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC) — TheDarkEnigma2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Weak keep While I admit that the sources on the article aren't the best, the article's issues aren't strong enough to warrant outright deletion, maybe a move back to draftspace at the most. Tali64^2 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Sorry, I just don't see it. Sources: 1-5 are all primary, 6 is not significant coverage of Miraheze itself as opposed to one specific wiki that it hosts (although this source comes closest), 7 is primary, 8 is a passing mention, 9 is an interview with the co-founder and interviews aren't normally considered notability-establishing, 10 is primary, 11 is another interview with the (other) co-founder, 12-14 are primary, 15 has the same problems as 6, 16 is a passing mention, 17 is both a passing mention and (in the context it's being used) a primary source, 18 is a primary source.
  So what we have here is sources that talk about individual wikis that are hosted by Miraheze, but not the required in-depth coverage of the wiki host itself. Note that I occasionally contribute to the site, but found out about this when browsing Wikipedia unrelated to my contributions there.
  Also suggest salting, so we don't end up here again without the article going through a third-party review by someone other than a locked long-term abuser. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support draftifying the article and salting the mainspace title so repeated unilateral page moves are avoided. I completely agree with the above assessment on sources. However, I also believe a proper procedure needs to take place, as expressed in my previous vote. –Vipz (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify and Salt I don't think that in its current state the sourcing is strong enough to prove notability but it's fairly decent attempt at an article if a few independent articles on Miraheze itself (not its Wikis) could be found. The move looks to be at least disruptive to me and given this is the 3rd time we are here. A salt should be added so it forces independent review. I do not dispute any characterisation of the Miraheze community as young and sometimes passionate about topics that is likely to mean we end up here again if salt is not applied. ~ RhinosF1_(Chat) / ^(Contribs) 15:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Chiming in as a Miraheze webmaster^{read: bureaucrat} of two years' tenure myself (at a time when that wiki farm's future remains uncertain after a slew of events during June and July--long story). Since WP:WEB shortcomings for this topic are still in place--and much of what needs to be known about that host can be found on its own home sites--all that's viable from here is either:
  1. a weak redirect to Comparison of wiki farms here (but as far as the rest of Wikimedia is concerned, cf. mw:Miraheze), or
  2. in the very off-chance that WP:Library's databases provide some coverage a couple of years from now, a weak draftify at WP:AFC.

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This got lost in the process so manually relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 00:22, 20 August 2023 (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.