Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was snow keep. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia

There are many sites contain "wiki" in there names.They are not part of Wikimedia too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.197.173.87 (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administritive note - this is a technocal nomination in the name of an anon who probably doesn't understand our deletion policies, and wouldn't be able to create the discussion page anyway. The request was actually made at VPP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So why on earth did you bother? --Cybercobra (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - By raising the question and showing widespread consensus that this article must remain, it places future attempts to get rid of this page on the realm of WP:SNOW. At least that is the logic often given for why other articles are placed in nomination. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think I was better off completing the anon's nomination (the person clearly gave me enough information to do so), than to BITE the user by telling him/her what the way to do so would be, clearly knowing that an anon can't do it properly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many members of the general public are still somehow not aware that "wiki" is a general term for a certain type of software, usually because Wikipedia is the only such site that they are familiar with. As a result, the Wiki- prefix may lead them to believe that Wikipedia and WikiLeaks are related. This page is a handy explanation that can be linked to those who mistakenly come to Wikipedia thinking we are associated with WikiLeaks.—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while I see the general objection that it's a little odd to single out Wikileaks, the unusual aspects of this case (the very high profile, the odd domain transfers) make it worth discussing specifically. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the WikiLeaks corollary to the WP:NOTWIKI problem. WikiLeaks' confusion with Wikipedia has been high-profile compared to other wikis; note the number of news articles referenced on the page in question. (Full disclosure: I have contributed significantly to the page.) --Cybercobra (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, a large number of readers have associated WikiLeaks and Wikipedia, thus the creation of this page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful disambiguation. -- Scray (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep People think that a high-profile and dangerous site is done by the same people: setting them straight is vital for ohhh so many reasons dangerous panda 15:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first sentence though should focus on the many other wiki's though. Instead of "WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation (which operates Wikipedia)." something like "WikiLeaks, and many, if not even most, other wiki's, are not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation (which operates Wikipedia)." Apteva (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very often it is mentioned that it is. So we should definitely have something explaining that it isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This comes up often enough that it deserves specific mention. (The WP:OTRS system has a canned response, specifically for WikiLeaks, because the question arises so often.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting a self-evident need. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish there was a reasonable way to make it more prominent. MBisanz ^talk 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Many unrelated sites do indeed contain "wiki" in their names but they are low-profile or non-controversial compared to Wikileaks. This is a good place to direct confused readers who post about Wikileaks. And this is common enough that {{Notleaks}} was created after a series of posts to Wikipedia:Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are hundreds of websites out there that use the word "wiki", whether or not they're true wikis, but Wikipedia and WikiLeaks are far and away the best-known. In fact, it's common (though obviously incorrect) to associate the very word "wiki" with Wikipedia, leading the very understandable conclusion that Wikipedia and WikiLeaks are related. If the correct usage of the word "wiki" were better known, this page wouldn't be necessary. But that's not the world we live in, so this page is highly useful. szyslak (t) 23:44, 15 October 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.