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 of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review[edit]

This website just isn't nearly information for Wikipedia. The hosting site is lower than 750,000 on Alexa; this is a message board that has one thread. It is probably a hoax anyway. We delete these all the time. [[Sam Korn]] 22:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did you actually follow the link? There's more than one thread on that site. Nevertheless, WP:NOT a web directory. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
- 1, 33, what's the difference? [[Sam Korn]] 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - 32. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
Keep so as to have Wikipedia as a whole conform to WP:NPOV. Whether its well known or not shouldn't matter. It is collaborating critiques of Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should move it into some project page then? It hardly deserves an article. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
- NPOV demands every significant point of view be taken into account. We shouldn't keep this article just because it criticises us. We have an article on that. We would delete any other article with this Alexa count etc, so why should this one exist? It is no more significant/verifiable than any other tiny webforum. [[Sam Korn]] 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page; however I abstain from the AFD vote. I agree we should fairly treat Wikipedia critics. OTOH--compared to some critics of WP (who are at least informed), this site appears to be a collection of random insults, whacky conspiracy theories (in cahoots with Google and Microsoft?), unsupported allegations of misconduct against Jimmy Wales and other WP admins, admissions (and encouragement) of vandalism against WP, and other assorted insignificance. Many of the regulars there appear to be folks who were booted off of WP for one reason or another, and are now grinding axes against WP. As far as Wikipedia critics go, this site isn't very notable--I wouldn't expect to find any serious critics of WP rolling around in this particular mudhole. (And yes, I am excluding Daniel Brandt from the roster of serious Wikipedia critics--mainly because he's so damn sloppy). --EngineerScotty 01:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Eusebeus 07:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and self-referential. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We could put an external link in Criticism of Wikipedia but unless the site's visitor count picks up it doesn't deserve its own article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a general topic, it could be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. --DDG 20:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:WEB criteria. Maybe worth a mention in Wikipedia namespace or Criticism of Wikipedia Samw 00:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Has been the subject of major media attention, as it was the reason why Siegenthaler's anonymous slanderer was unmasked. See here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#John_Seigenthaler_Sr._vandalism_unmasked.21. Now if that doesn't make it notable, I don't know what does! Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Getting all hot under the collar about some website just because it has Wikipedia in the title is extreme myopia. -Splash^talk 04:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it didn't have "Wikipedia" in the title, it still wouldn't be notable.--Sean|Bla ck 05:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these guys suck. Grue 16:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For shame! That's not a very good reason to delete a page. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the site is notable enough to warrant it's own article, particurly as it stands. If article is able to be expanded into something more than a stub, Keep. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. There's not really much to be merged, and indeed, this site is already linked from Criticiscm of Wikipedia. However, I can see a redirect being useful. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. Any criticism of a prominent entity is desirable - are there any other forums dedicated to criticising Wikipedia? If not then any such forum, regardless of hit count or the number of posts, is notable. If we are confident of the importance and intellectual integrity of Wikipedia then we should be able to confidently face its critics, even if we find their arguments sloppy (I think right-wingers are sloppy and they probably think the same about me). [[jamescole1980]]
Delete. Not notable, only 38 members. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 18:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely unnotable. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:31, 12 December 2005 (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.