Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus-CBCS


 * 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. Defaulting to, I guess, "soft redirecting," as it seems like there's not consensus to delete (even according to the nom), but there does seem to be agreement to either eventually keep it outright (if the enough sources are found/valid/whatever) or leave it as a redirect until better sourcing can be found (thereby maintaining the page history). There doesn't look to be any prejudice against un-redirecting or otherwise reviving the article immediately. slakr \ talk / 08:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Opus-CBCS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There were many software packages for BBS/FidoNet back in the day. I found some independent coverage for one similarly purposed package called Maximus-CBCS, but nothing satisfying WP:GNG about this Opus-CBCS; the page about it on bbsdocumentary.com is a wp:primary source as it's written by the software's initial author. There are some mentions of it in google books, but all are in recent and low-quality books that synthesize/copy material from Wikipedia. The wiki article was created by a WP:COI contributor quite a while back, so I don't think much more effort searching for independent sources is justified. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 4.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also this article seems to suggest it was open source, but apparently that was not the case during the time when the product still might have mattered on the market . Given the scarcity of reliable sources, the article is hard to fix. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of BBS software. Honestly, most of those software packages need to turn into redirects.  They were fun back in the 1980s, but they're simply not notable by Wikipedia standards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I think a WP:BLAR might a good solution for now, but keeping the page's history. This might actually be slightly notable. After reading the Maximus CBSC review I found above, I learned that the Maximus software was inspired by Opus. Assuming it might have been a little influential, I searched a little more; it's easier to find relevant citations if you search for "opus" (without "CBCS") and "wynn wagner" but exclude his later self-published books (which are unrelated to the software) . That way I found two BBS software roundup books from the early 1990s that have 1-2 pages(s) coverage of Opus (can't tell exactly how much coverage because only snippets are visible for me in GS):
 * Dvorak's guide to desktop telecommunications pp. 276-277
 * The Essential Guide to Bulletin Board Systems pp. 59-60
 * With those two in mind, it might be justifiable to keep this page's history & rewrite it based on those secondary sources. Library holdings for these two books are pretty sparse (on Worldcat) so it might take a while for anyone to get them and fix the page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I dunno. If you feel it's enough, then I'll strike my vote, and we can speedily keep this.  There's probably something out there that describes this software, as it was historically important (one of the earlier IBM PC-compatble BBS programs), but it was popular before the explosion of interest that happened in the late 80s and early 90s, and much of the coverage by reliable sources was for commercial software.  There's mountains of BBS cruft out there.  I still think most of these articles should be redirected or merged, but I'm willing to pick my battles.  At the very least, someone is going to have to go through all these nostalgia-filled articles and remove all the original research.  I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet, but I'll probably get around to it, eventually.  Many of these are very old articles, dating to the period before we even required reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The potential sourcing I found is pretty thin. It's not clear how much depth of coverage those two books have for Opus; I can see maybe three paragraphs in one book and one in the other via GB snippets. Stuff with far more depth of coverage but similarly weak in terms of number of sources has been deleted before. (I'm thinking of BP Logix.) The other thing clear from the table of contents of Dvorak's book is that there were a lot of similar BBS software packages. So let's see how other Wikipedia editors evaluate the potential sources. I'm not (yet) withdrawing my nomination. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 11:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔  21:43, 1 March 2014 (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.