Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WackoWiki

WackoWiki[edit]

Old VfD[edit]

Just an advert for some unknown wiki. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 20:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete Cutler 21:46, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 02:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Geogre said it. Skyler 03:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Comment. It's not a Wikipedia mirror. It's not a website running a Wiki for some other purpose. It's a site offering some kind of Wiki software (like MediaWiki), under a license described as "You are free to everything. Hmm... almost =). See LICENSE file in installation pack." Whatever that means. Does that make a difference? Do we have a guide to sources of Wiki software anywhere, and should this be on it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New VfD[edit]

~~del~~ Keep. Mikkalai 01:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Vote changed after the article being expanded. Mikkalai 18:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Note: there's an article on the same in the Russian Wikipedia. Samaritan 02:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It may be of notability for russian programmers. The current article says nothing why it is notable. Mikkalai 07:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep, no clear reason for deletion. m:Wiki is not paper, remember. Dan100 09:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Has more than a hundred thousand Google hits. Lose the advertising copyish features list, though. --Korath ^会話 00:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you have just abit of patience to click 4 times thru the list of hits, you'd notice there are only 318 of them, and vast majority of these are purely technical references, like invitations ot download, user documentation, etc. My son's website has more hits for his silly college projects. Mikkalai 01:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
FYI, here's the exact number of hits from wikis running on WackoWiki. Again I can hardly understand your systematic deletion policy for Wakka forks -- Dario (User:151.37.62.186)
- And the exact number would be 75, if you click at page 8 of google report. Mikkalai 17:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - No, that the number of pages that Google thinks are "dissimilar"; the real number of pages found is shown at the top of the page. --JavaWoman
Delete. --fvw * 09:17, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Ok, why don't delete MediaWiki also? WackoWiki has more than 300 installations, such as http://freesource.info/, http://wiki.qube.ru/, http://wiki.phpdoc.info/, http://docs.mamboserver.com/ . Keep, --- kukutz
Comment: Is there any clear policy on (dis)allowing articles describing trademarks / commercial products / open source software products? DenisYurkin 16:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There is a common policy of notability. You cannot have an article for every piece of software out of college's dorm. Mikkalai 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - Excellent. And what're criteria for notability? If I believe it's notable and you believe it's not, how can we resolve a conflict? Is it only voting that can help us? (i.e. number of adherents vs number of ignorants) Some kind of Sanhedrim that is supposed to know everything notable? DenisYurkin 17:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - If there is nothing more to say than "I believe it's notable" in its support, then it is non-notable. If there is something to say, say it. "WYSYWIG editing", "easily cutomizable", etc., are commonplaces, hence not proofs of notability. Mikkalai 17:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      - In other words, there's no common criteria for notability, I understood correctly? Then, let me clarify: what do you mean by notability? Is 'well-known and widely used' enough? (then what's criteria for wideness?) Or we only mean 'having unique features, which makes the product different from others'? DenisYurkin 17:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        We are not in the court of law here. Once again, if you have something to say, say it. Rewrite the article to show the notability of the tool. See also wikipedia:Importance for general guidelines. Mikkalai 17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        Thanks for politely answering my every question (sorry, I started replying when your last phrase read 'Otherwise goodbye'). Now I clearly understand that it may or may not have any sense to say anything on the matter... Anyway, what I know about WackoWiki is: (I'm ready to contribute this to the original page):
        it is used as a knowledge management system in many companies in Russia, including Yandex (search engine and one of largest internet companies in Russia); detailed list of companies can be provided if it can add value
        
        it is leading wiki engine in Russian segment of Internet (if you measure by number of installations)
        
        its codebase is used for NPJ (english page), first open-source "blogs+wiki" web service/software in Russia
        
        it has javascript-based WYSIWYG-like editor WikiEdit, and it's far more advanced than MediaWiki's (smart (un)indentation/lists, lots of keyboard shortcuts (press '?' in toolbar here))
        
        DenisYurkin 18:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        
        So what are you waiting for? Be bold <-click here. Mikkalai 18:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - - - So, if there is nothing more to say that "it's not notable" then it's notable? Just exactly what would provide "proof of notability", please? Could you please drop the derogatory tone, mr. Mikkalai, and provide some objective criteria why these articles should be deleted? The mere fact that now-deceased Wakka has so many different forks (not "copycats") is in itself notable (as are their differences). Of course they have common features (MediaWiki has common features with Wiki, too! - in fact all Wiki engines have common features, that's why they can be classified together in the first place). Keep - all of them. Maybe they should merely be edited somewhat to emphasize their differences. -- JavaWoman
- Once again, if you have something to say, say it. Rewrite the article to show the notability of the tool. The article looks like a cut'n'paste from User Guide or promo leaflet. It doesn't even say that the developers are Russians.
  - Why would it be "notable" that the developers are Russians (are they?). Does it matter where they come from or where they live? - JavaWoman

Once again, I pointed you towikipedia:Importance for general guidelines. Did you have a look into it before immediately jumping at me? Mikkalai 17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - Yes, I looked. The first thing I see is "This is a proposed policy" - and I don't even see any occurrence of the word "notable" or any of its derivatives. The one "jumping" at others is you Mr. Mikkalai, by proposing to delete seemingly arbitrary pages and not others in the same class and using derogatory language rather than objective criteria to make your case. -- JavaWoman
Keep. Agreed with previously announced reasons. --Yemperor 18:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. VfD abuse - David Gerard 23:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Are you crazy? Extreme keep! --L33tminion | (talk) 03:56, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Whether or not the software is being actively worked on, the contents of this article are helpful to a reader looking for an overview of development efforts in the wiki software field. — DV 04:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep I've started the article, nice discussion -- enno 23:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)