Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illogicopedia
- Illogicopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Wikipedia:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." WP:WEB states "Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources.". The article is almost entirely cited from the website itself (a primary source).
Sources evaluation:
- Not in the top 250 Wikis in the world, according to meta:List of largest wikis
- Alexa.com has 'No Data' for the address..
- Sources evaluation
- All unreliable and primary sources have not been included.
- http://www.tipandtrick.net/2008/spoof-wikipedia-websites/
- A tiny mention, can't be used to build an article. Reliable?
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/gadget/gadget.php?id=441
- Another tiny tiny mention.
- http://in.news.yahoo.com/indiaabroad/20080318/r_t_ians_tc_internet/ttc-hoax-wiki-style-internet-encyclopaed-935afea.html
- Another tiny tiny mention.
- http://www.mainpost.de/nachrichten/journal/Journal;art6164,4366754
- I don't even read German and I can tell it's just another mention along with other sites.
- Just another non-notable wiki, the author of the page is an admin from the site. Notability and verfiability has clearly not been established as there is no substantial coverage so therefore fails WP:WEB easily, so delete. Otterathome (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Hm, WP:COI is a concern to me. Otherwise, fails WP:WEB and WP:RS. treelo talk 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Illogicopedia is the product of a lot of effort to be a storehouse of intentionally crafted nonsense, and after one viewing, there's no reason to come back a second time. Maybe this is where all the deleted hoaxes go to. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It only gets trivial mentions in the news articles. The secondary coverage of this website seems to be little more than mentioning its name then moving on to the general concept of comedy/nonsense encyclopedias, very far from in-depth coverage.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment while WP:WEB and WP:RS] may be effective reasons for deleting this, can I please note that WP:COI does not come into this for a second. I may well be an admin on the site but it doesn't mean that I don't know how Wikipedia works and know how to write and article. Hence my one other article not being deleted: I'm a fan of the musician but that didn't cloud my judgement. Much as I provided a balanced account of Illogicopedia. Fair enough, it doesn't meet notability guidlines yet. --—Mr. MetalFlower · chat · what I done did do 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the list of largest wikis appears flawed: look for example at the number of users vs everything else --90.198.245.77 (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)