Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyBulletinBoard


 * 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 )  · @108  · 01:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

MyBulletinBoard

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Deprodded with an assertion of notability, but I'm having trouble finding significant independent coverage about this forum software in reliable sources. Pcap ping  03:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  03:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, fails general notability guidelines.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 05:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software in Google, Google News, and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not see any significant coverage for this software, and so this fails WP:N. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Important FYI to everyone; you need to search for "MyBB", not "MyBulletinBoard", to find information related to this forum software as the former is what it is referred to in almost all cases. Gary King  ( talk ) 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few mentions in the Google News Archives, such as this one from the Heinz Heise publishing company that discusses MyBB's move to GPL; there are also some Google Books mentions. Some of these are reviews and recommendations for it, while most are regarding security flaws found in the software. A forum-software.org review exists as well. Gary King  ( talk ) 01:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did indeed make a search under that term. What was returned still did not meet what I believe are the requirements for general notability, hence I stand by my original Delete comment. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment So what exactly needs to be done so this page doesn't get deleted? As anyone with common sense can see for themselves, everything on the MyBulletinBoard page is accurate but if Wikipedia requires more then you need to tell us what needs to be done instead of indiscriminately putting up a huge banner of "Considered for Deletion" with no usefulness whatsoever. Would you like links to the actual literal source code when we talk about features? You absolutely cannot be more truthful then the direct source code. In terms of "Significant independent coverage", what does that mean we have to do in layman's terms? Ryan Gordon (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. First, read the article on verifiability, which establishes that verifiability is the basis for inclusion. Then, visit the page on notability and read through that information. The article discusses what it means to be notable, and how to use reliable sources to verify notability. Consider also that articles should be approached from a neutral point of view. If you have an interest in the subject of the article, you may well have a conflict of interest issue. I'm sure others have other relevant links, although this isn't exactly the right forum for that. Regardless, there is a wealth of information available about what is needed to avoid deletion. Transmissionelement (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep This is the third most popular free php/mysql forum software and is growing in userbase. Large team, open source GPL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbgamer45 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we know that? Pcap ping  02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: After making a list of all of the free forum softwares that had a release in 2009, I looked up the domains for those softwares on Alexa. While NinkoBB and PunBB's rankings could not be properly analyzed, all of the others could, and I found, based on traffic, phpbb.com was ranked at #3,314, simplemachines.org at #3,615, mybboard.net at #11,017, and bbpress.org at #13,681 - to name just the four highest ranked. While this may not provide a completely accurate picture of the "popularity" of forum softwares, it does indicate that of the free forum softwares listed in the article I referred to, MyBB is the third highest ranked in traffic. To me, that means that MyBB is likely the third, or close to the third, most popular free forum software. That said, surely one of the top three forum softwares, which continues to be actively developed, supported, and discussed, should have its own, dedicated Wikipedia article. Belloman (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. Hey Belloman (and others commenting on MyBB's popularity), that info is really appreciated, but it is not what is used to establish notability, which is the basis for whether the article is kept or deleted. I'll reproduce my reply above again, and look at the links within the comment. If you read those, you'll see what would be sufficient to indicate that the article should be kept: "First, read the article on verifiability, which establishes that verifiability is the basis for inclusion. Then, visit the page on notability and read through that information. The article discusses what it means to be notable, and how to use reliable sources to verify notability. Consider also that articles should be approached from a neutral point of view. If you have an interest in the subject of the article, you may well have a conflict of interest issue. I'm sure others have other relevant links, although this isn't exactly the right forum for that. Regardless, there is a wealth of information available about what is needed to avoid deletion." Good luck, and thanks for your efforts. Transmissionelement (talk) 21:51, 6 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.