Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chainki (2nd 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 delete. – Avi 07:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chainki

It's baaaack! Deleted in July by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chainki, deleted again in October as repost, here it is again. Content different, but the naming of the founder is a stable feature (vanispamcruftisement?). The last paragraph, a meta-comment stating that it is "already notable" because of its size. Since this was achieved largely through bulk copying from DMOZ, not it's not. No evidence of actually meeting WP:WEB. Started in July 2006, Alexa rank is well over 300,000. No independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm one of the parties who added details to the article. [Puts up hand sheepishly and admits to having added the founder's name]. Being new here I didn't realise its history, nor that the inclusion of the chap's name is taboo. For future reference, how would I run a search to know if an article has already been deleted? -- MirDoc 10:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens all the time. Nothing wrong with adding the guy's name, either, especially if he's notable, but this looks like a vanity namecheck (even if it isn't) because it appears to be the one thing which has existed in all incarnations. You can tell if it's been deleted by looking at the logs, which should be linked from the "no article exists" page. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm to blame for the recent creation of this article which was three sentences long when I submitted it. I'm new to Wikipedia and I didn't realize the content wouldn't be suitable for a new page. I'll read up on the discussion and try to figure out why it isn't appropriate. I also won't try to modify it again. Tut21 19:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the blog[[1]] associated with Chainki might also be worth a look in relation to this discussion. ;-) The author of the original wiki entry is chuffed to have this second version denoted at the Web directories category. -- MirDoc 08:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blogger also reads here, see [blog] ;-). 80.201.217.145 12:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the "half a million pages and 200,000 edits" seem to be inherited directly from Open Directory Project. (I could download an ODP database dump too, that wouldn't make my hard disk notable.) Demiurge 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Open Directory Project to discourage yet another recreation. It should really just be deleted, but it will just be recreated again. Why not just save ourselves the trouble? Movementarian (Talk) 11:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The statement that "notable simply because of its rapid growth" is false -- we need sources for this article and it does not have any, probably because nobody considers it to be worthy of note. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth per nomination. MartinDK 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All references are to itself, which doesn't establish notability. Salt as it has been deleted twice already, once just a month ago. StuffOfInterest 12:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Grutness...wha? 12:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. As it says Following a long line of other sites using Open Directory Project... - there are thousands of sites that are based on ODP. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have three web directory sites generated from ODP data, users can add their own sites to my directories, and thay are not just ODP clones but added content. If this gets kept, it sets a precedent that means I get to add mine to Wiki also. Mine are also not for profit (at least I have not made any yet [LOL]) --ArmadilloFromHell 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have a connection with Chainki, so the "Keep" is perhaps biased, but I am also therefore in a position to bring some facts. It's worth perhaps comparing this RfD with the previous one. In the previous one Chainki had 689 hits in Google; today it has 25200. In the previous one, Chainki did not even appear on Alexa; today it has an Alexa rank of 328,297 - but particularly since this is a new site, the rank (which is 3-month) is inevitably out of date, so also relevant is that all the figues on Alexa are strongly upwards - the 1 week average is 238,086, and at one point the site was in the top 100,000. It's perhaps a sign of some notability that three separate users have created it. As long as Chainki keeps growing strongly (which it has according to Alexa) I'm sure it will come back again and again. Save a lot of work and keep; I don't much care, because I know it will keep coming back as more and more notable and one day it will stay. Brusselsshrek 09:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If GoGuides and Skaffe aren't considered notable enough for an entry in the Wikipedia, then Chainki certainly isn't notable enough. The article as written seems to be pretty commercial too, rather than encyclopedic. Rray 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not notable, and seems to just be using Wikipedia to troll for more links. Pete Fenelon 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. I think it should be kept bacause of its huge number of pages. If it's being kept, it should be rewritten. [ Smiddle / Talk - Contribs ] 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite I agree. Keep and rewrite. Kobra 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite I have no connection with Chainki - indeed I had never heard of it before today - but having seen a reference to it I looked on Wikipedia and found the article a useful explanation. If there are things in the article that don't meet your standards, fix it, don't delete it. Yes, it's based on DMOZ data run on Wikipedia's software, but that's why both made their data/code respectively open. And it DOES add value to those things: it answers the question of "what would happen if you let anyone edit DMOZ Open Directory using the Wiki model?". Personally I expect it to fail due to link spamming - but then many people expect Wikipedia to fail and so far it's surviving pretty well! If I'm proved right it will serve as a lesson to the net, and if I'm wrong that will be even better as it will be a useful resource. [Note: I do have a connection with DMOZ, as a volunteer editor there (editor name dww), and I see Chainki has incorporated all my work without thanking me in any way. But that's fine by me; if I didn't want it to be shared I wouldn't work on an open system.] 86.9.147.50 13:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) dww[reply]

Comment. Mr.Chainki also reads this page. Some thanks added. 80.201.89.121 14:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite I too am a volunteer editor with DMOZ with no connection to Chainki. I’m somewhat ambivalent about Chainki’s future and tend to share dww’s view on the matter. However when adding to this article I sought to approach the task with good faith and expand the stub based on whatever research I could scratch up on the topic. With the benefit of re-reading the article a week later, I can now see how the different portions added throughout 20 November by different people do not always gel with other portions. On some points the article hedges bets, yet at other times throughout the article the same points are expressed as fact. In trying to be even-handed, I have probably kept too large a percentage of the previous portions rather than rewrite them to a consistent style. If someone were to straighten out the misfits and trim the duplications, then I think this article would be worth saving. MirDoc 08:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite I also agree with dww. When I submitted the short Nov. 18 version of this article I considered Chainki noteworthy because it is the only attempt to convert dmoz to a wiki that anyone can modify. In my opinion this is important because dmoz's editor tools have been down for over a month with no end in sight. If there were several such projects I would agree that none of them belong in Wikipedia just yet. (And yes, I use both dmoz and Chainki.) Tut21 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but ambivalent. (Full disclosure: I own a "competing" website, Wikidweb the article of which was been deleted for notability concerns [No, I did not write the article - I don't spam to promote my sites]). The point I want to make is this: 1) We have an objective criteria for article inclusion, in the interests of fairness and avoiding chaos. 2) If we are to really apply "Noteworthy" as an objective criteria, it should be applied uniformly. Now, I think Chainki is noteworthy, and I also think Wikidweb is noteworthy - they both have a degree of popularity and have some neat, unique features - but that does NOT satisfy the notability criteria for websites (sorry Hugh). --Aerik (talk)

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.