Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EleBBS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. The discussion below indicates that any coverage is too trivial to establish notability. --jonny-mt 04:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- EleBBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable software; no claims made for notability. Blowdart | talk 15:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom --T-rex 16:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, fails wp:note —Preceding unsigned comment added by D0762 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - EleBBS is indeed notable, and one of the most popular BBS packages in use. Pcmicro (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remarks So I'm looking at the references you added; but they don't prove anything; a listing of software used on various FidoNet nodes does not prove notability. They are just "in passing" mentions. Can you provide statistics to prove it's "one of the most popular"? Regards; --Blowdart | talk 04:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - EleBBS is one of the few BBS packages still in development, which in itself should make it notable enough to keep. By the way, the claim about "one of the most popular" was about RemoteAccess BBS, not EleBBS.--Jay (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remarks But without proof of that statement it's not proving notability; see my problem here? --Blowdart | talk 14:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remarks What statement do you want proof on? Please clarify? So basically you want to delete a whole article because you disagree with part of a statement without having proof either way? WTF? Why not ask for a refinement instead? --Jay (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remarks All of it. You cannot simple state that (a) it's one of the few BBS packages still in development without proving it; and (b) that therefore it is notable (I'd say it's not - I have my own open source project on Information Cards; it's the only project of it's type - does that make it notable? I'd say not; it makes it niche instead). Have a read of WP:Note. I'd like to see full blown references explaining why it's special. --Blowdart | talk 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remarks BBSNews.org, Synchronet, Renegade BBS News, and Santronics are authorities on the current state of BBS software. Currently, according to these resources, Renegade, Synchronet, bbs100, MBSE, and Winserver are the only full BBS packages actively being developed. Updates for EleBBS and EleWEB are made via an email lists which you are welcome to join at EleBBS and EleWEB mailinglist. --Jay (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK but it's about provability. And encyclopaedic provability. You'd need to show that those web sites are authorities, by dint of history, 3rd party reviews and so on; simply stating they are isn't enough to my mind. --Blowdart | talk 05:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, this back and forth is rough from what I can tell. The "prove" its a authority it probably needed, but that's alot of sources there to say the least (usually two needed), and if you don't know if they are authorities or not, that's (imo) not enough to warrant deletion, you could have just talked this through on each other's talk page. As far as I can tell, those ARE third party/independent links ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably true; but the article was rather weirdly ignored; and no references (other than "in passing" ones) existed when the AFD was originally started. Hmm, how do I withdraw an AFD? --Blowdart | talk 06:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- EDITEDNominator's can withdraw nominations for deletion. Wikipedia should have a section of articles that require massive modifications to be better for topics that are notable, just don't have a well written wiki on it. (I think I saw it mentioned somewhere on someone's user page). If there is one, maybe move the article there instead? (And they really ought to publicize the place to put articles requiring massive modification, so people don't nominate articles for deletion simply because the article is poorly written, not because it isn't notable) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (Edit) As per Wikipedia Guidelines for AfD: <quote>Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.</quote> ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- EDITEDNominator's can withdraw nominations for deletion. Wikipedia should have a section of articles that require massive modifications to be better for topics that are notable, just don't have a well written wiki on it. (I think I saw it mentioned somewhere on someone's user page). If there is one, maybe move the article there instead? (And they really ought to publicize the place to put articles requiring massive modification, so people don't nominate articles for deletion simply because the article is poorly written, not because it isn't notable) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably true; but the article was rather weirdly ignored; and no references (other than "in passing" ones) existed when the AFD was originally started. Hmm, how do I withdraw an AFD? --Blowdart | talk 06:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, this back and forth is rough from what I can tell. The "prove" its a authority it probably needed, but that's alot of sources there to say the least (usually two needed), and if you don't know if they are authorities or not, that's (imo) not enough to warrant deletion, you could have just talked this through on each other's talk page. As far as I can tell, those ARE third party/independent links ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK but it's about provability. And encyclopaedic provability. You'd need to show that those web sites are authorities, by dint of history, 3rd party reviews and so on; simply stating they are isn't enough to my mind. --Blowdart | talk 05:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remarks BBSNews.org, Synchronet, Renegade BBS News, and Santronics are authorities on the current state of BBS software. Currently, according to these resources, Renegade, Synchronet, bbs100, MBSE, and Winserver are the only full BBS packages actively being developed. Updates for EleBBS and EleWEB are made via an email lists which you are welcome to join at EleBBS and EleWEB mailinglist. --Jay (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remarks All of it. You cannot simple state that (a) it's one of the few BBS packages still in development without proving it; and (b) that therefore it is notable (I'd say it's not - I have my own open source project on Information Cards; it's the only project of it's type - does that make it notable? I'd say not; it makes it niche instead). Have a read of WP:Note. I'd like to see full blown references explaining why it's special. --Blowdart | talk 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep EleBBS is a notable software. Reliable sources are present. The article has some flaws, but it can be improved. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you checked the 'reliable sources'? The "Beam me up Scottie" book is about basketball. The encyclopedia doesn't have an entry for this subject [1]. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations need to be changed, new ones apparently were brought up on the AfD discussion.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PhilKnight, I am not talking about the sources in the article. I am talking about the sources presented in this AfD discussion. I agree with Noian. The citations should be changed. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it be tagged with {{rescue}}? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PhilKnight, I am not talking about the sources in the article. I am talking about the sources presented in this AfD discussion. I agree with Noian. The citations should be changed. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations need to be changed, new ones apparently were brought up on the AfD discussion.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you checked the 'reliable sources'? The "Beam me up Scottie" book is about basketball. The encyclopedia doesn't have an entry for this subject [1]. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no substantial coverage demonstrated nor assertion of any noteworthy significance. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:33, 8 July 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.