Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YaBB
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 October 7. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. (X! · talk) · @245 · 04:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- YaBB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Marginally notable forum software. No independent source provided in the article, except for an interview. Pcap ping 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: All that I can find on Google is the official site, download sites, forums, and info on a software vulnerability. All that I can find in Google News is three software vulnerabilities and forums. But I will !vote weak keep because I found [1] and [2] in Google Books plus there is an interview already in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Historically notable for being the Perl/Flat File based ancestor of Simple Machines Forum, which is fairly popular today. ANDROS1337 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unnotable software that FAILS WP:N; minor mentions and a single interview are just not enough coverage to meet notability requirements, and its being the ancestor of some other software does not make it notable enough for its own artice. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP , I think that this software and it's spread of use make it notable enough. There certainly seem to be enough people who have heard of it. (Milestokilo (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete since I use it, I was inclined to say 'keep', but I just couldn't find sources to back it up. Dlabtot (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unremarkable software, provided references dont establish notablility RadioFan (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable freeware. JBsupreme (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2010 (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.