This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VanishedUser sdu8asdasd (talk | contribs) at 11:43, 19 May 2013 (→Wikipediocracy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:43, 19 May 2013 by VanishedUser sdu8asdasd (talk | contribs) (→Wikipediocracy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Wikipediocracy
- Wikipediocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
OK, may as well get this started: it just hasn't got enough coverage yet. Fails WP:GNG, specific guideline WP:WEB. Yes, it was mentioned in a reliable source, exactly once. Is The Daily Dot a reliable source? Hmm... Wikipediocracy is of course a WP:PRIMARY source about itself. And so on. Slashdot it ain't.
In my opinion, this AfD was inevitable, and probably best if an uncontroversial wikignome (and one who is happy to admit when they are wrong) kicks off.
Keep it nice and stick to the relevant criteria for deletion, people.
Shirt58 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Now, this is going to turn into an absolute shit-storm of censorship and whatever allegations, but Wikipediocracy does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:WEB or WP:ORG. Sure, it's notable to Wikipedians, and perhaps should be moved somewhere outside mainspace, but it still fails the guidelines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)