Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BetaArchive

BetaArchive

(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)[reply]

Delete. Notable, but written like an advertisement. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I could not find any reliable sources to support notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]