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 keep. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikocracy[edit]

Wikocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable wiki (WP:WEB). No sources. One source from a college newspaper; no indication that a lot of people visit this website or that its gotten any other press coverage. Savidan 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it took me a long time to make up my mind, but after looking at the site and the Stanford University paper's coverage on it I decide it is better to keep it. It is a very innovative approach and is definitely notable, not just a frivolous wiki. I think we can relate it to Uncyclopedia except wikocracy is more political and less comical. Wooyi 23:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One mention in a student newspaper does not make notability. If it is notable, there would be independent press coverage on it. —dgies^t_c 01:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Google news archive does provide two references on AlterNet, this being the better of the two. LawMeme also has a decent article on it. fwiw, uncyclopedia has a non-trivial article on them that's entertaining. John Vandenberg 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon, we may be getting crazier around here by the day, but I don't think we'll say the day when Uncyclopedia is a reliable source (maybe around the time of the last topic) --UsaSatsui 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I have heard of this webpage outside Wikipedia, and it is more notable than a mention in a student newspaper. Also as per Wooyi; not a frivolous wiki. Its notable in the "Where's George?" way. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sourced and referenced Alf^Photoman 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I'd like to see more sources. Stanford Daily, for the record, is a bit more than the average student newspaper, it's got a pretty good distribution outside the campus. --UsaSatsui 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per reasons given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On inspection, subject main page has been accessed 27587 times. A secondary source is provided. Undoubtedly more impressive sources exist. It is a serious project. “Notability” criteria are disputed. Has considerable potential for expansion. SmokeyJoe 02:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but believe it IS a frivolous wiki. CenozoicEra 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The one reference and the one independent external link weakly establish notability. -- Black Falcon 18:57, 14 March 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.