Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBS software


 * 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

List of BBS software

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete per WP:NOT a software directory. This is an indiscriminate list, as evidenced by what appears to be 99% red links and other trivial and unsourced items. JBsupreme ( talk ) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  11:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyvio? The entire list is actually referenced from, which is a WP:RS for such info. The author, Jason Scott Sadofsky, gets cited on this topic in several books . So, WP:V is met. The real question is: is such an extensive duplication of a list from another site acceptable? Pcap ping  14:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am not disputing the accuracy of the list provided by Jason Scott Sadofsky, I am sure it is quite reliable. My point is that regardless of whether or not it is a copyvio, we are still mirroring a directory listing of what appears to be mostly non-notable software (as defined by Wikipedia general notability guidelines).  Those first two strikes are bad enough.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 19:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  14:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  14:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. Also blatantly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 2 says you, says two 21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I declined to speedy delete it, as I do not consider it a copyvio. Only part of the specified list was used as a guide to writing, and additional information given. It was used as a source, not copied.   DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but limit to those having Wikipedia articles or otherwise qualified for one. That's the usual standard, for lists giving a guide to articles on notable  Wikipedia  subjects are not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N . AfD is not necessary in order to do the necessary editing.    DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How does this list not violate WP:NOTDIR in your view? JBsupreme  ( talk ) 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite - clearly this should be expanded into a detailed list with a paragraph for each product. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and per LISTS. Well, I'm not sure it needs to be strictly limited to items with WP articles, but definitely pruned.  LotLE × talk  22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - we're starting to get a too narrow view of notability and importance. This is part of computing history, why is there such a rush to delete it? -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's very reasonable position. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. per the above. DGG offers a good middle ground; the list does need a bit of pruning, and a smaller list would be of greater value to the reader. A broader list is available at the source cited, which can be noted in the reference. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of whether the article should be rewritten, there is no doubt that there should be such a list for navigation as per WP:CLN and List, as there are more than enough blue-linked BBS software to warrant one. DGG's take on improvements is a good one. In short, edit, don't delete. walk  victor falktalk 05:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim down to only include notable BBS software per DGG. Reach Out to the Truth 04:26, 3 February 2010 (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.