Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebChat Broadcasting System

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 due to copyright violation from this document. The document was posted in January of 09, the article didn't come until months later and was copied directly from that document. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WebChat Broadcasting System

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Sourcing appears tangential and this has a very unencyclopedic tone. Doesn't look like it has sufficient enduring notability to justify an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing indicates WBS was a major player shortly before the dot-com crash. Notability is there - Someone researching topics in the encyclopedia related to the crash would have some value for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plvekamp (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Although it is now defunct the Webchat Broadcasting System once had millions of users and was one of the most important and successful chat sites in the era before instant messaging and the dot-com bust. It satisfies notability requirements according to WP:Web since it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The article does need work to make it more encyclopedic in tone, but that doesn't justify deleting it.Narthring (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I've seen hundreds of wiki pages far less informative. Deleting this would be a tragic mistake. Narthing has done a wonderful job here and it was spoiled by a childish feud. Don't punish the many because of the few. I personally agree with their blocks or at least Clark's. Though, to my eyes he merely responded to threats, this was no place for either of them to drag a feud or for Moth's people to spam their link and site.
We should be pleased people like Narthing care enough to hold tribute to very wonderful days passed by. I thank him and I beg that this site remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.170.39 (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article was far more encyclopedic in tone until a revival and tribute site to the original WebChat Broadcasting System was launched in July 2009 and a mostly one-sided feud was started by the owner/creator of a "rival" chat site. I personally contributed much to the original article, but much of it was removed (or "vandalized" as the "rival" sites creator described it in the main articles discussion section).
His main complaints are that the new WBS site is somehow attempting to "fool" chatters into thinking that the revived WBS site was constructed by the original owners/creators of the original defunct WBS. The article plainly stated who the creator of the revival site is. Since this new site is nearly identical in name, appearance and functionality to the original WBS site, its mention and linking to the site in the original article is entirely relevant and appropriate.
The dissenter has raised other issues on the discussion page that are not relevant to the article. Issues concerning "ownership" of a few chat rooms that appear on the "rival" site, the request for donations to help maintain and expand the site and some questions of copyright.
The WebChat Broadcasting System article is important documentation of a popular and pioneering website. It's Wikipedia article should definitely remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.17.24 (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this page and found it to be very informative. Good luch with it's continuation. I chose a proxy for the simple fact that zuuz might note, there was a feud and I preferred to state my opinion as neutrally as possible without persecution from either side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.211.148 (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The above comment replaced this comment. It's probably the same user as 76.97.170.39 above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin and others There seems to be open proxies, and sockpuppetry, all over this debate. Users are encouraged to identify if they have commented before, and not use proxies, else the comments are likely to be discounted. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This site was an important part of Internet history. Back then, there weren't so many options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.221.128.37 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because when I forget certain aspects of wbs.net's closure, this is the only detailed resource I have to fall back on. 99.9.166.76 (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) cliff[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. More participation from experienced editors is needed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The only problem I currently see is the unencyclopedic tone, which can be fixed. Other than that, I see no reason to delete. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me}

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.