Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invision Community


 * 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 keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Invision Community

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article was taken to AfD once before and the result was ‘keep.’ However, I respectfully disagree with the arguments made by those !keep voters. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it notable. Apart from this (I’m still skeptical of its reliability), I was unable to find any potentially usable sources. One reference is a far cry from WP:GNG. ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 01:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing my stance to keep. Thank you for the ping, Modernponderer! I’m still thinning out my watchlist and hadn’t seen your !keep vote. Those are indeed high-quality sources. After browsing through them, it seems to me that what this article needs isn’t deletion, but a massive rewrite (I wouldn't mind helping out with that). Consider my own vote changed. However, I’m not going to WP:WITHDRAW the nomination and close all discussion, as other editors have ‘suggested an outcome besides keep.’ ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 00:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 01:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article linked in nomination fails WP:V as it's not independent and is just an interview of the founder. The actual company isn't notable either and an online forum they made certainly isn't either. The company and website (both mentioned in the article) fail WP:NWEB and WP:NORG. Quaemenelimbus  ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 15:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have found exactly two citations that are unquestionably reliable, independent, and have significant coverage – which means the "multiple reliable sources" requirement of WP:GNG is met and the article should therefore be kept:
 * a book (talk about significant coverage!): https://www.amazon.com/Invision-Power-Board-Configure-discussion/dp/1904811388
 * an article in Macworld: https://www.macworld.com/article/173934/invision.html
 * But in addition, I would like to point out that I am quite literally shocked at the dearth of coverage. The other participants here are likely not aware of this, but IPB was absolutely HUGE in the 2000s – it was literally the Windows of Internet forums (which were themselves the social media of that era). I know, WP:MUSTBESOURCES and all, but this is one of those cases where there is very strong cause to reasonably suspect that numerous sources have simply "disappeared" (perhaps still lurking somewhere in the non-searchable Wayback Machine), especially considering we're talking about an online product... Modernponderer (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, I remember those times. phpBB, VBulletin and IP Board were the big three of forum solutions (as this article tells https://www.practicalecommerce.com/Forums-Offer-Interactivity ). I can say that at least in Spanish speaking circles it was really popular around 2003, when it was free to download. 190.114.59.113 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to offer proof. The software was popularized almost by word of mouth during the recovery of the dot com bubble, and almost led the market during the twilight of Web 1.0 and self-hosted social technology in general.
 * I can say that one of the biggest Half Life communities, where even Gabe Newell had an account, used IPB (1,2), and a Team Member of the phpBB official forum noted that phpBB, IPB and vB were potentially vulnerable (3).
 * If IPB's article must be deleted, under the same logic phpBB and vB should be deleted too (deleting info about 3 software which almost built the social internet of their short era). 190.114.59.113 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Yes a dearth of references; there is a marketing presence online - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:464B:497F:0:C4FC:5DAE:BA7:19FB Should Wikipedia be part of that effort? Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Flibbertigibbets, your attempt to find a WP:COI issue with the article based on a single contribution years ago from an IP address that didn't even create the page would make a less WP:AGF-following editor (not me of course) think you might be working for one of Invision's competitors...
 * Anyways, is there a particular reason why you've completely ignored the references I provided, which together seem to meet WP:GNG? If not, then I would respectfully ask the closer to give your opinion little weight per WP:NOTVOTE. Modernponderer (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The topic from the past relates to a specific Bulletin board systems or software or more likley belongs here Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software. This article speaks to the marketing of Internet community software not even that -    The article is reaching for references  (including two very weak citations above, a book with 3 reviews on how to use the software package)  but that does not necessarily mean that the subject is not notable.    The strongest support for notability would be the prior afd discussion.   The AFD speaks to a Bulletin board system or software and that is not what the article speaks to.
 * The reason I tagged the major article edit via 2015 is because that major edit aligns with the three tags on the article.
 *  I don't really know what the article speaks to.  I read the first few paragraphs as an advertisement; and the following paragraphs as version release notes. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like to ask the nominator User:HelenDegenerate and User:Quaemenelimbus to please consider the sources I found as well. Two is certainly not many, but it is "multiple" and importantly these are high-quality sources, which are worth more than several low-quality ones. Modernponderer (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If the lead could be worked on first - I think that is the way to go.. it might find a home here Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software same developer-principle "Matt Meecham" Ikonboard Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the article is in need of improvement, its lede isn't very clear and comes across as somewhat promotional. I don't think the sourcing provided so far is very strong, but per WP:IAR I'm still voting to keep, because after some googling it looks like it may be as popular as some people are saying it was. A search of "Invision Power Board" finds a number of mentions of it, such as here and here --Tristario (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A search on google news of ""IP.Board" forums" (without the extra quotation marks) also finds quite a few results, mainly about forums getting hacked, such as here, here, and here. So it looks like it may be sufficiently notable Tristario (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed the lead to be consistent with the finding here that it is a "forum," and I moved the history section up to the lead.  In my opinion, this addresses the marketing tag and it also provides a very concise overview of the topic (which I hope is correct).   In my opinion, there is not enough sourcing (which does not mean that the subject is not meaningful or notable).  I just cannot establish notability.  I would ask that others chip in to try to make this article better.  Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks like an improvement, thanks Tristario (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Flibbertigibbets, are you still advocating "Delete"? Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Liz.. I think I would still suggest Delete (or weak delete) because I simply cannot find any indication that this was notable in that the product is/was one of many.  There is nothing I can find to support a stand alone article.   It might be ok to have a line entry Comparison of Internet forum software.   Again, I was reluctant to remove content from the article but did so in a sincere interest to try to make it simpler to understand.    I think the article speaks more to the prior AFD discussion which was Keep.     When I read the comments here what stood out is IPB was absolutely HUGE in the 2000s  <- if that statement was supported I would have no problem saying Keep.  There should be some online support for something notable in the early 2000's  that can be incorporated into the article.   Can the folks that suggest "keep" address the concern? do you need more time? Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The strongest sources mentioned here are the Packt-published book and the MacWorld article. The Wired and practicalecommerce articles are brief mentions; the Polish source doesn't list an author. I'm considering them to not be enough to be quantiful enough. SWinxy (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment (mainly for User:Flibbertigibbets but also in general) – I genuinely appreciate your willingness to reconsider your stance on this article. However, it appears to me that all of your points about it are not correct:
 * Most importantly, whether to keep or delete an article is supposed to be judged by the sources according to Wikipedia policy, not the current state of the page (which can always be improved if it is kept).
 * Major changes to pages undergoing deletion discussions are strongly discouraged, for multiple reasons such as appearing to WP:GAME the system and potentially wasting valuable editorial time (including your own).
 * The lede of the page before your changes during this discussion was quite clear, and it is not obvious that removing such large portions of it is an improvement. The same goes for the version history, which is unusually critical for this article because of the version-specific controversies IPB underwent multiple times (this isn't just about routine release notes like for other software).
 * The description of the sources as "very weak" is... pretty ridiculous. The number of reviews the book has on Amazon is utterly irrelevant per WP:UGC. What is relevant is that the book is no mere guide "on how to use the software package" as you assert, but actually includes in-depth coverage of the history of the software, as well as more general discussion about running an online forum. I strongly suggest that you take a look at the table of contents, which is freely visible on Amazon. The fact that you dismissed the second source without any explanation at all is even more difficult to understand.
 * Least important, but still worth mentioning: please try to keep discussion on a single issue in one place, and in particular please don't move discussion of an article to a specific user's talk page as it makes participation more difficult for other editors. Modernponderer (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly,
 * 1) We disagree that sufficient sources exist to support an article both in number, reach and quality.
 * 2) per afd docs "if you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination." Even though I do not think the article should be kept, there was an effort made to keep the article by looking for sources, and editing the article.
 * 3) The lead did not even state the subject was about an online forum software something basic to understanding the article as a reader unfamiliar with the subject.
 * Invision Community is a brand of forum software developed in 2002 and originally marketed as Invision Power Board. The current version of the software was written in PHP and uses MySQL for database storage. Invision Power Services (IPS) was created in 2002 by Charles Warner and Matt Mecham after they left Jarvis Entertainment Group, which had bought the forum software Ikonboard from Mecham. Their first product sold by IPS was the forum software Invision Power Board, which quickly gathered a community of former Ikonboard users. The software has been marketed for over twenty years and has been updated and changed over that timeframe.
 * vs.
 * Invision Community originated from Invision Power Board, one of the applications that can now be bought separately and requires IP.Suite. Up until version 3.4 of Invision Power Board the staff at Invision Power Services had gradually expanded their product line with additional community-centered applications like IP.Blog, IP.Gallery and IP.Content. However, IP.Board was always required as many aspects of the core and other applications relied on it. Starting with IP.Suite 4 they decided to abandon IP.Board as their "flagship"-product and unify the version numbering and release schedule for all their applications... more... the reader never knows what the subject is about! the "controversies" in versioning text were obtuse.
 * 4) The position "to keep" will be supported by the sources and content within the article.  As above, nobody could reasonably know what the article was about without changing the Lead.   Appealing to "person" or "process" does not address the base concern over notability, sources, and article content.
 * 5) AS an open platform (with an edit trail) you have the opportunity to change the article, find sources, revert edits (I am not going to stop you from doing so), address concerns, and/or work in partnership on talk. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Flibbertigibbets, could you please explain why you:
 * quoted the second paragraph from the old lede, which is obviously a supplement to the first one, while not doing the same for your version?
 * ignored my criticism of your assessment of the sources (including one that still lacks any explanation at all)?
 * responded with five points as I did, yet with the last two points on completely different topics? Modernponderer (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For better clarity, I provided comparisons of new and old leads for consideration (after, and before which was unreadable) .  It is literally up to you (alone, in partnership with other editors) to take the steps necessary to address the concerns listed in this AFD and they are valid concerns. The place to address concerns is within the article itself, not here.  The best argument to be made to "keep" the article would be to work to improve the article' so at the end of the day the concerns listed here get addressed.  AS an open platform  you have the freedom, support (from me as well), and latitude to change the article, find sources, and revert edits if needed.''  I can be criticized (I don't mind) but it's just not productive it does not address the issue which is the article.   Nothing is stopping anyone from editing this article; that is where "the burden of work is and the burden of proof resides," if the article can never meet standards it needs to be deleted.  I did my part (put skin in the game, took some heat) it is up to you!  Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that Flibbertigibbet's changes to the article are mostly an improvement - it's more clear now, and there is less unsourced content. I couldn't find any policy or guideline that says you shouldn't improve an article during a deletion discussion (maybe I've missed it). I also don't see how their changes could be be construed as WP:GAME-ing in any way, I think good faith should be assumed here Tristario (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tristario, although it is discouraged to remove large amounts of content from articles involved in an AFD during the discussion period, it is common for articles to be improved over the course of the week. In fact, occasionally, I've seen articles completely rewritten during an AFD discussion and then the consensus was to Keep them now that they were improved since the time of nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we even have an essay that is often cited: WP:HEY. Articles are not frozen in place while it's at AfD, and WP:AFD specifically says If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. While there may be some disagreement on whether cutting the article in half is an "improvement", what was removed looks like nothing more than WP:CHANGELOG material, and nobody is going to suggest the deletion of the article just because the minutae of version releases isn't present in the article. Deleting independent reliable sources or doing something negative to the article in an attempt to sway the deletion discussion would be a problem, but this isn't anywhere near what happened here. - Aoidh (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. If we were going solely by what's in the article I would have to agree that notability isn't there, but the Macworld piece above in addition to sources like this and this do show notability. I also found a few papers that go into some of the technical details like this and this (paywall). Unsurprisingly, I couldn't find anything on Newspapers.com but there are certainly books and scholarly papers about this (usually under the "Invision Powerboard"/"Invision Power board" name). - Aoidh (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG, although the article definitely needs improvement. I found another source here, although I'm 50/50 regarding whether it'd be considered a trivial mention.  Nonetheless, it could be used to expand the article. Uhai (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2022 (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.