Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia

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 in light of the addition of some third party sources which establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inciclopedia

Notability has not been established. A notability tag has been on it for nearly 3 months now. No third-party references still. So fails WP:WEB. Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another non-notable wiki. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to uncyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge This article sounds like an advertisement written by the website's users, also. It fails WP:N in that it is non-notable. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears notable (the article was translated from a valid page in the Spanish-language Wikipedia) but merging this would overload the Uncyclopedia page with info on a non-English wiki. --carlb (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having it on another wiki doesn't automatically make it notable here.--Otterathome (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like to believe that notability in Spanish implies notability in any other language. Syndrome (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a short section on the site's notabilty. It's jimbo wales' wikia's most popular Spanish-language wiki, probably the most popular non-wikimedia foundantion wiki in Spanish too, it has been widely covered by the press, I think that should be enough to establish its notability.--Rataube (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it notable for the same reason that WikiX site is the most populate site in X language. If it has been widely covered by the press then add it to the article or here.--Otterathome (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information already has been added. If your original concern was that the page was missing citations to external sources, that has been resolved, so it would be best to close this pointless discussion now. --carlb (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One source doesn't mention the actual website name, another is just a small video mention. The newspaper article is the only good source. The rest are primary sources. So still fails WP:WEB.--Otterathome (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being the most notable wiki in X language doesnt make it notable? When X is the third most widely spoken language in the world, with about 400 million native speakers, it does. It's just as notable as the site in english. Unless of course you are to claim all non-english culture is not notable per se. I can provide more links to the press. Would that make you happy?--Rataube (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not, I was using the term in general per "third most popular wiki on the wikia.com domain" doesn't make it notable. Another non-trivial reliable source is required for it to pass WP:WEB.--Otterathome (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the article has been established. Ther is a section in the article that gives reference to the notability of said article. It also cites links for verification. I think that the article should be kept. J.T Pearson (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The site itself is worthless, but notability is established. Frank | talk 15:21, 5 May 2008 (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.