Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (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 keep, wrong template, and not really intended for deletion, and it is disrupting categories. kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

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

Almost all the significant contributors have obvious conflicts of interest. Apart from vague indications that they are "Wikipedians" or "Wikipedia editors" or that they "edit Wikipedia", no contributor of this article has made a clear conflict of interest declaration. Rewriting this article would be almost impossible, and it would take a long time until someone from Wikia or Citizendium agrees to write this article for us, ensuring no COI. So, in the meantime, I suggest we simply delete it. SD0001 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page has more than 5000 revisions. Hence, this would need a steward to delete. SD0001 (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep + delete this deletion discussion because this defies all logic. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It doesn't exactly "defy all logic". Consider: If a notable person writes a biography, the chapters reflect segments of the person's life. Readers are interested in those. Are readers interested in a chapter devoted to the biographer's experience writing the biography? No. (Do you know of any biography containing chapter: "The Writing of My Biography"?) Likewise, readers are interested in what Wikipedia has to say about topics: the encyclopedia's articles. And an article *on* Wikipedia itself corresponds to a biographer including chapter in her/his biography, about the writing of the biography. (Not what readers want. Not particularly interesting. And not at all the purpose. [It's like bending a magnifying glass in order to magnify and inspect itself.]) IHTS (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any which way, I've nominated this page for deletion. ...and nominated the deletion page for deletion, and then that deletion page for deletion... Until I couldn't fit anymore "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/"s. (too long title). Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops... The deletion discussion page of the deletion discussion page of this deletion discussion page has been deleted. But I've left the deleting admin a note on their talk page. SD0001 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear COI and no evidence of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I'm a soulless bastard. BethNaught (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it belongs somewhere. Transwiki to Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just some non-notable fork of Nupedia. Mr. Wheely Guy (on wheels!) 20:39, 1 April 2015 (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.