Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyBB (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) B  music  ian  05:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

MyBB
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously deleted article on the subject of non-notable software has been re-created. I have searched once again for sources, and not found any significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongo  matic  06:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For assistance: I've compared the previously deleted article to this. It is not a simple re-creation of exactly the same content.  There are differences in structure and content.  There are, however, similarities.  Both, for example, cite as supposedly reliable sources articles written on openly-editable wikis by pseudonymous authors whose identities, and thus reputations for fact checking and accuracy, cannot be determined.  (They don't even claim any identities, and the wiki itself even notes in a disclaimer at the foot of every page that its articles are potentially inaccurate because any user can edit them.)  Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is getting tedious, quickly. MyBB is an open source forum software comparable in size and popularity to that of SMF. Likewise, it's hard to uncover sources that fit within notable source guidelines. MyBB has been an active project for 10 years, has a sizeable community and has, on average, 500 new activations per day. It is also a media partner and participant at ForumCon. There are dozens of less known forum software that have never been up for deletion on Wikipedia; I find it convincingly harder to keep this free encyclopaedia relevant and up to date with this much red tape. --Mooseypx (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC) — Mooseypx (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just an added comment, MyBB is also available with Softaculous. Mooseypx (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an added comment, MyBB is also available as part of 1&1 Internet Click and Build Applications; if inclusion from the 4th largest web host is notable. Mooseypx (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an added comment, MyBB was mentioned by Neowin when 1.4 was released Neowin: MyBB 1.4 Mooseypx (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 3rd party software also integrate MyBB; Forum Runner or Tapatalk. Softpedia also have recent MyBB News. There are a few mentions in books but as passing references; mostly mentioned in the same scope as vBulletin, PhpBB and SMF. A Columbus Dispatch article from 2008 about a local resident selling a popular forum also mentions MyBB. Hansup used the software before merging to community-centric software. Unfortunately, free forum software isn't really 'news' for many review sites - something that Phpbb and SMF suffer from. CNet, Wired and other sites that could be considered as notable are not going to be paying attention to this industry; they don't even list giants Vbulletin or IPB. Mooseypx (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I pulled the PROD off (mistakenly) thinking this version was different than the last, sorry to Bongomatic for the inconvenience. Per the last AFD, I still would rather keep this article than delete, per WP:IAR, as it is a hugely popular package and has been for a great deal of time, and the encyclopedia is better off with the information than it is without.  And yes, sourcing is an issue, but not a contentious one.  IMHO, this is one of those exceedingly rare instances that WP:IAR was really created for.  The above links are interesting, but rather than debate WP:RS, I will stick with my keep rationale, weak or not, it is true and accurate.  Dennis Brown   (talk)  14:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Now I see that some feel it was "different enough" from the last. We will just call this a draw Bongo :)  I still say keep, as above, with slightly better references than last time.   Dennis Brown   (talk)  22:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2012 (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.