- 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. ( non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 22:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
List of LocalWikis
- List of LocalWikis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
none of these arenotable projects by WP standards. wp articles are not directories, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- collectively they are notable, the list article is to avoid clutter on the main page. Jonpatterns ( talk) 17:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, because it is okay for a comprehensive list of all examples to be split out of LocalWiki article. But sort of reluctantly, because the current version of the list is poor, almost mind-numbingly so. While it could conceivably tabulate useful or interesting information about the local wikis (dates of creation, size, number of active editors, evidence on any observable effects in their communities, links to reliable sources about the local wikis), it in fact provides no information at all. It does not even provide links to the local wikis! -- do ncr am 18:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- comment this isnt even a list of wikis. its just a list of places, with a localwiki name, not even an external link. the reference is just the single website. is even one of these notable. the reference is really just as good as an external link on the localwiki article. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep If LocalWiki stands, then I don't see why this shouldn't too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – My impression is that this comes across as a reasonable branch of the LocalWiki article. Perhaps this can be merged into the LocalWiki article, which is not too long, with a present size of 10kb (see WP:SIZERULE). The article has also realized significant copy editing after being nominated for deletion. For example, it was converted into a table format and now includes links. North America 1000 07:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 22:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
List of LocalWikis
- List of LocalWikis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
none of these arenotable projects by WP standards. wp articles are not directories, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- collectively they are notable, the list article is to avoid clutter on the main page. Jonpatterns ( talk) 17:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, because it is okay for a comprehensive list of all examples to be split out of LocalWiki article. But sort of reluctantly, because the current version of the list is poor, almost mind-numbingly so. While it could conceivably tabulate useful or interesting information about the local wikis (dates of creation, size, number of active editors, evidence on any observable effects in their communities, links to reliable sources about the local wikis), it in fact provides no information at all. It does not even provide links to the local wikis! -- do ncr am 18:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- comment this isnt even a list of wikis. its just a list of places, with a localwiki name, not even an external link. the reference is just the single website. is even one of these notable. the reference is really just as good as an external link on the localwiki article. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep If LocalWiki stands, then I don't see why this shouldn't too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – My impression is that this comes across as a reasonable branch of the LocalWiki article. Perhaps this can be merged into the LocalWiki article, which is not too long, with a present size of 10kb (see WP:SIZERULE). The article has also realized significant copy editing after being nominated for deletion. For example, it was converted into a table format and now includes links. North America 1000 07:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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.