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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowikis was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-02. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis (old).

Yellowikis was nominated for deletion again on 2005-10-07. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis 2.

It's a wiki for business information, that apparently intends tries to fill itself by grabbing deleted articles from Wikipedia. Except that it doesn't really. It has been around for nearly half a year, still has an Alexa rating of 137,331, and has as little as 1024 legitimate content pages. (renom). Wikipedia is not the place to advertise a start-up business. Linkspam, delete. Radiant_>|< 21:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yellowikis doesn't "grab" articles, Uncle G's bot transwikis them. Yellowikis has been around for just over one year. Most of the articles are considered incomplete in some way so they are marked as stubs - and for that reason they are not included in the count of legitimate pages. Yellowikis isn't a business. The use of the "rel=nofollow" tag prevents the external link from acting as linkspam.--Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 21:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per below --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's had some verifiable media coverage, it's now notable in the field of business directory wikis even if it fails. Kappa 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article. This Alexa ranking is below the WP:WEB threshold, but that's a proposed guideline, not a rule, and there seem to be other notability things in its favour (per Kappa, and the links given in the article). DELETE the spamming links to it seen in other articles and see if it can't be rewritten to be more POV. It seems to have grown somewhat since the first nom. On the other hand, if it keeps growing, maybe even if it gets deleted this time, it can always come back later. Perhaps the article content could be transwikied to itself? ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Larry, but Yellowikis already includes a page on Yellowikis :) . I'd post a link to it here but I am afraid that you'd castigate me for linkspamming.--Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not me! ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WEB is a guideline, not a proposal for one. Radiant_>|< 00:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks R!... The recent changes were what was proposed, not the guideline itself, so strike that. Do we know who's actually doing transwiki-ing? It seems to read like someone on their side is doing the work of moving (about to be?) deleted articles over? ALSO, they can't be THAT tiny, they have [1] the WoW! vandal... PS, has anyone tried asking them to stop spamlinking? (need to go review the prev 2 AfDs) ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Until Radiant! edited it out, the article actually told you outright who was doing the work, and whose resources were involved. ☺ Read the article's history. And I pointed out to them that they should not add links to Wikipedia articles, back in the first AFD discussion. Read it. They stopped. Uncle G 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP has lots of links to other WikiMedia Projects that are in construction - We thought that it would be OK to link to a FDL, non-profit, (but non-foundation project). Uncle G advised against it so we stopped. But I still think we should be able to encourage people to add information to Yellowikis. Just as some articles point people at WikiBooks or WikiSpecies. --Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've now read the first and second discussions, as well as reviewing the article history. I'm confused as to why some of the cite material was redacted, and now aware it's you that causes semiautomatic transikification to happen (and if you have any ins with the team there, you may want to recommend they take some antivandalism steps!). But I have not seen anything to change my vote from keep as noted above. Thanks for the pointers! ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I fail to see how grabbing deleted articles from Wikipedia is a bad thing. In my opinion Yellowikis is different enough in concept from any other business directory to be worth its own article. Nikai 00:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and I think we should stop transwiki-ing things to them as well, it's a diversion of our resources. I love Lar's suggestion that they be made to eat their own tail, though! - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How, exactly, is it "a diversion of our resources"? Please specify precisely what resources involved in the process are "our resources". Uncle G 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm basing that on looking at WP:TL. I'm often wrong, but unless there is no human intervention required here, isn't this a long list of things that someone has to tend to as opposed to doing something else? Even if it's just bot-work, that's still disk space and server time being used. And "our resources" are those that go towards the aims of the project. If the editors doing the work are members/contributors to YW as well, I suppose it's not an issue. Not my reason for supporting deletion, though.
      brenneman^(t)(c) 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm basing that on looking at WP:TL. — As per the name of that page, that's the log of things that have been transwikied, not a queue of things to be transwikied. And "our resources" are those that go towards the aims of the project. — That is still not specifying what resources "our resources" actually are. Hint: There are no such resources. Uncle G 03:36, 16 January 2006
        • Er. I didn't say "here are a bunch of resources that are going to be used," but I could have been more clear in that. I also said that bot work still consumes resources. It's a minor point, but I'm not seeing any indication that I'm wrong. The bot runs on Wikipedia servers, it's consuming a Wikipedia resource, albeit a tiny amount. Clearly there is such a thing as "our" resources, which is why I can't use my user page as a de facto myspace and why we eliminate spam. I now yield the floor.
          brenneman^(t)(c) 04:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What makes you think that "the bot runs on Wikipedia servers"? Was the hint from the person who runs the 'bot that there are no such resources perhaps too subtle an indication that it doesn't run on Wikipedia servers? ☺ And I didn't ask what "our resources" were in general. I specifically asked what resources involved in the process (of transwikification) are "our resources". I'd like to know when my machines became the property of the Wikipedia community. ☺ Uncle G 06:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • All your bots are belong to us. —R.Koot(Jimmy Wales) 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • chuckle Uncle G 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Replied on user's talk page. - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Presumably the question of what load on WP transwikification causes is entirely seperable from this AfD, though, right? ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes. Totally irrelevant to this debate. --kingboyk 22:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (regrettably), does appear to be notable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, low alexa ranking, only 205 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what "205 unique hits" are. I get 104,000 results on Google
    • Go to the last page of your search. That shows only 52 unique hits. That means that, of the 104,000 mentions of yellowikis on the entire Intenet, those mentions are only on 52 pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you think there are 52 pages on the internet each with an average of 2,000 references to Yellowikis? Doesn't sound very likely.--Yellowikis Admin 09:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Notable to some extent, I guess. But POV and unencyclopedic content needs to be trimmed. -- Krash 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE () 01:36, Jan. 16, 2006
• Delete Move to Wikipedia namespace Keep per attempted cut-the-knot deletion and place on spam blacklist per this statement on their site

  Any organisation big enough to have an article in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/) should also be in Yellowikis. If you get the chance please remember to add a link to Yellowikis saying something like "Listed in Yellowikis" from the appropriate Wikipedia page AND add a link back from the Yellowikis page to the appropriate Wikipedia page. [2] —Ruud 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yellowikis collects quite different information about companies than Wikipedia does. There are hundreds of links from WP to Yahoo! Business information - are you going to add Yahoo! to the spam blacklist too?--Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not mind adding a link to Yellowikis if the company does not have a website on which they state their business information, but the if you get the chance ... add a link sounds like an invitation to spam Wikipedia. -Ruud 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That statement pre-dates the first AFD nomination (read the discussion that is linked to above), and that practice has long since ceased. Uncle G 03:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, low-traffic wiki, where shit like this goes rather unnoticed. -- Willy on wheels 04:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.85.83 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • He only blocked Willy for 208 days and 8 hours! --King of All the Franks 14:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe by then Willy will have reformed, or gotten a life, or whatever? I suggested infinite is a better expiry. Also I raised a question on the talk page of this AfD, and would appreciate thoughts of others... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. enochlau (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Kappa. Stifle 16:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable and having received transwikis, etc. Ral315 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thoroughly non notable. And as for notable 'having received transwikis' are we to 'gift' notability to every site we send deleted content to?! That just wouldn't be fair on the webmasters of the thousands of other non notable sites we routinely delete. --kingboyk 22:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. The amount of energy that has gone into this (and previous) discussions could have been better spent improving Yellowikis to the point where it became notable. --Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why are you here abstaining instead of over there, actually improving it? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's who I think it is, xe has just spent the past day doing exactly that. Uncle G 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable/advert. Incognito 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets notability threshold. -- Curps 06:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In the first AFD discussion, I asked Payo (talk · contribs) for citations of independent reports of and conference presentations about Yellowikis. Based upon clues in the discussion there, I actually located several articles myself at the time. More have been added since. Whether content is copied from here to Yellowikis is irrelevant to whether this web site is notable. But so, too, is discussion of Alexa ranking, Google hits, and article counts. Such considerations no longer form part of WP:WEB, and rightly so because they are bad metrics. WP:WEB asks for non-trivial published coverage of the site by multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article links to several such published works. True, this web site is at the bottom of the notability scale. But it does satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. Keep. Uncle G 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm a long time wikipedia user, been using wikipedia for the longest time, even though most of my edits are done without logging in. I don't understand the fuss about yellowikis, since wikipedia is full of other junk stubs of companies that probably needs clean up. Most are even under the wrong name. Furthermore, currently Yellowikis is not for profit, thus a place to advertise start up businesses should not really classify into this argument. Also, why aren't other articles like wikicompany etc. not being considered for deletion, seems like utmost bias to me on part of the users of wikipedia towards other wikis. --Stabani 20:25, 20 January 2006 (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.