Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Meta-Wiki (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. And nothing of value was lost. Shii (tock) 06:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

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

This page cites not a single source whatsoever and doesn't even assert notability. It obviously satisfies the A7 speedy criterion. For most of its history it was a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation; Red Slash turned it into a full article, but was unwilling or unable to present third-party coverage. I doubt significant third-party coverage exists. But a seven-year-old AfD discussion where notability was asserted without evidence is now used to keep this alive and an article in direct violation of WP:N, WP:WEB and WP:V. Apparently it will take a new AfD to acknowledge that unsourced content without an assertion of notability has no place on Wikipedia. So be it. Huon (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching, I can't verify any information beyond "Meta-Wiki is a website about the projects of the Wikimedia foundation". The first AfD is pretty silly (but the idea that this article could be A7'd after being kept at AfD on notabiliy grounds is just as silly). As far as I can find, it doesn't remotely meet WP:N, and as much as I detest "redirect" !votes at AfD, this should probably be redirected to Wikimedia Foundation, since that's the most useful outcome to give someone searching for information on the topic. Wily D 15:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Doesn't contain any significant material.
Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation unless third-party sources are found. I did find at least one, [1]. The other Google Books hits seem to only be small references. (COI: I'm an admin on Meta) πr² (t • c) 15:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the authors of that book, one of whom is deceased :(, are Wikimedians, so it could be sorta a COI there. At least it's something. πr² (t • c) 21:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that source too, but ultimately conclude it was more like a first/second party source than a third party sources. Wily D 09:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just reread this article's original AFD. It is ridiculous. Wow. If it weren't for !vote-counting... man, I feel policy was on the deletionists' side here. And maybe here as well. I really badly underestimated Meta Wiki's outside-world notability, I thought there would be lots of outside sources that were just difficult to find, etc. I am delighted that Mr. Circle Area found one source--congratulations, one better than me . Now at least if things don't change, we'll have a good precedent to follow. I mean it, everyone, I really, really thought there'd be sources out there. From now on I will seek out an abundance of sources before making the article! (By the way, important content should definitely be merged at least. It is frustrating that this title redirected to WMF's page in the past, a page that didn't really say anything about Meta.) Red Slash 19:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some more info could be added to Wikimedia_Foundation#Wikimedia_projects. πr² (t • c) 20:36, 5 May 2013 (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.