Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BetaArchive

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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

BetaArchive

BetaArchive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No reliable sources, only sources are WinRumors (a blog), itself, and its founder's personal site. So it fails both WP:N and WP:V, as well as WP:RS. OBrasilo (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. It's turning into a big argument over whether we should keep or delete it. Lets delete it and get it over with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebrabrainz (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Pages are not deleted because you don't like deletion discussions. —danhash (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable, but written like an advertisement. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How is it notable? Which reliable sources have written about it? And how many? - OBrasilo (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I could not find any reliable sources to support notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep It seems the page has been significantly updated based on what I see here compared to what I see on the article currently. I find 2nd party sources, relevant information, and little if any evidence it is "written like an advertisement". Zamadatix (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

First, it lacks a criticism section. Second, it clearly takes a POV in favor of the forum. Third, you're affiliated with the forum so you have your own reasons to keep its article here. And what of your "2nd party sources" are major news outlets or scholarly resources? And how of them are personal sites, forums, blogs, etc.? - OBrasilo (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does it need a criticism section? —danhash (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't, but the other points are valid. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep It's notable, and even if it is "written like an advertisement", it can just be rewritten, no need for a deletion. SalfEnergy 20:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's notable? How? Which major news outlets or scholarly resources have written about it? - OBrasilo (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Engadget and more. 86.16.172.249 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

These references don't establish notability because they give no more than passing mention of BetaArchive (in other words BetaArchive is not the focus).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - does not deserve more than passing mention since that's what I'm seeing in my own Google Alerts updates. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep – Though it needs more references and perhaps a better statement of notability. —danhash (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The potential to have more references when none can be found isn't a reason to keep an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The sources aren't there. Engadget doesn't seem to count, as that was written by the site's owner, no better than a self-published source. Winrumors? Come on. Regardless of whether this is written by an advertisement or not, it does not pass the WP:CORP test required for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment not sure if this affects the debate in any way, but BetaArchive is listed as 391 on Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet Culture/Popular pages SalfEnergy 06:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say that it's relevant to the deletion process.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, It is showing that the page has thousands of views, and if this many people want to know about it surely that means it's something notable. SalfEnergy 17:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Circular reasoning. Notability doesn't happen because something has an article on Wikipedia. Where in any of our notability guidelines (WP:CORP or WP:GNG) are Wikipedia page views a criterion for inclusion? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere, I was just pointing out that it had views, notable was the wrong word but I couldn't think of anything else. I also said "not sure if this affects the debate in any way" SalfEnergy 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I understand now. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep as it is widely documented by the media. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

uh, where? --Odie5533 (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, where? We need more than just Google hits to keep an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete advertising forum and writing article about their ftp server is worthless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Day2Die (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Day2Die (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 07:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete - relisted? What a lazy, snout-counting non-closure. Well, here's a lazy, snout-counting-friendly vote: No reliable third-party coverage, article in its current state is completely unsalvageable. Cheers. Badger Drink (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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.