Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EsoTalk

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. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EsoTalk

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

Forum software with no independent sources, fails WP:GNG. --Zvn (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only one of four sources is from the official website itself, and it is much famous than a half of systems on the list. If this were not good for Wikipedia, why don't you ask to delete some articles like MyBulletinBoard, Bmforum, FruitShow, kunena, MercuryBoard, miniBB, NextBBS, OvBB, PHPwnage, and Quicksilver Forums?--Meow ✉ 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other three sources are also self-published: software developer's advert on Youtube, esoTalk forums and the third one a blogpost by Meow, that is you. --Zvn (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is just your reason, please also delete MyBulletinBoard, Bmforum, FruitShow, kunena, MercuryBoard, miniBB, NextBBS, OvBB, PHPwnage, and Quicksilver Forums. They absolutely don't have independent sources, and some of them don't have any source.--

Meow ✉ 02:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF; theoretically all those articles can be nominated for deletion at some point if no independent sources are found, but that would need separate review and deletion nominations. When WP:COI of the article's creators becomes apparent, it only works as a catalyst because Wikipedia is not for promotion or to "spread the word" about your new product.--Zvn (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about MyBulletinBoard, Bmforum, FruitShow, kunena, MercuryBoard, miniBB, NextBBS, OvBB, PHPwnage, and Quicksilver Forums? I also can't find significant coverage for them.--

Meow ✉ 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping save this article at all. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just urge for the justice.--

Meow ✉ 06:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for great justice. The references are a blog post, a forum posting, a broken link, and a YouTube video? Okay. Looking further, this still doesn't seem to pass WP:N or WP:V. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was reviewing the article in the time that Glenfarclas took to write his post, and I totally agree his findings. All 3rd party references, blog entries, forum entries, youtube videos, are self-published. I did a search myself too, but was unable to find anything above that level. So, it fails the WP:RS part of "reliable secondary sources" in WP:N. Pcap ping 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2009 (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.