Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monochrome BBS (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 delete. can be undeletd on presentation of solid sourcing.. until then its not for mainspace. I can userfy if anyone wants to work on it in userspace Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome BBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Honestly, I'm not sure how this was retained the first time around, it is pure original research and cites nothing in the way of reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable, WP:OR --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an example of an article that's hard to source without going back into pre-internet publications. The number of google hits suggests that the BBS software may be notable, but it's hard to tell, and google often comes up empty when it comes to BBS-era software even when it is highly notable. I think the best solution here would be to tag it as unreferenced and bring it back to AfD if references aren't added after some time has passed. Amazinglarry (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have to concur with Amazing Larry, here. There are no glaring problems with the article (such as BLP) that demand a quick deletion, so there is no harm in taking some extra time to research the subject. I'll see if I can come up with anything. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is notable: it is an old, interesting and large system. Amazinglarry is right about the difficulty of finding good sources on this, but it would be fantastically short-sighted to simply delete it because of this difficulty: it would simply be throwing away information for no good reason at all. This article addresses part of social computing history, and must be kept. DBaK (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:INTERESTING. We don't keep unsourced content around just because someone might find it interesting. We have to be able to properly verify the material we present here, as a service to our readers. JBsupreme (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree, either with your summary of what I said or with what you are trying to do. The problem of finding sources in this case - especially with a ridiculously unsearchable name like Monochrome and the rather transient nature of some of the history of it - is very real, and does not make it a de facto invalid article. I still do not see what is wrong with Amazinglarry's suggestion and I, in turn trust that the closing administrator will carefully consider all of this - I too will be "dumbfounded" if they do not properly take into account the particular problems here. DBaK (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to BBS pending better sourcing. All that's been shown to exist so far is the .net article, which is a start, but not quite to the multiple sources we'd need. This article actually has been around for years without the sourcing issue being addressed, although apparently there wasn't a tag pointing out the problem. Tagging and waiting would also be an option, but I'd prefer just redirecting. When and if someone finds sources, they can recreate... the content would still be there in the article history for anyone to use, we wouldn't be throwing it out. In this case, I think it's worth pointing out that the Monochrome still has an informative website online... Wikipedia is not the only or even the best source of information on this topic at the moment. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I see no explanation for why consensus has changed since it was kept in AfD four years ago. It appears notable, its a topic where finding the sources isn't as easy as a quick google.--Milowent (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One would hope that our standards for sourcing and reliable content have improved over the past 4 years. I'll be dumbfounded if the closing administrator overlooks this glaring problem in lieu of all the WP:ILIKEIT votes. As it stands, this article violates WP:V policy. JBsupreme (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I believe the .net article gets us past WP:V issues, since WP:V just calls for deletion if there are "no reliable, third-party sources for... an article topic". There's one here. But the notability guidelines call for multiple sources to support a standalone article. I agree that appeals to google hits or empty, non-source-based assertions of notability should be discounted by whoever closes this discussion. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added a citation which meets WP:N and WP:V concerns.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changing from keep, my citation was originally from Wikipedia. I overlooked that. Since I searched extensively for references, I must vote delete per WP:N.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good grief yes, the whole Webster thing is just a massive WP rehash! Bummer, I am thinking of changing my vote to "head>desk" or "I give up" ... :) DBaK (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment - having read all the above and looked around a bit I do worry that it may prove impossible ever to find verifiable sources on this. Whilst I'd support "tag as unreferenced but don't delete just yet" in the hope of shaking something out from the trees, I don't think I could support "leave it alone and unreferenced for ever." And even allowing for the difficulty of searching on common words, it does seem - see TParis00ap above! - remarkably hard to find anything. Pardon my thinking out loud - my inclination is still really keep but I'm really having some trouble seeing the way forward. If we did what Amazinglarry suggested, would it be time-limited, or would someone commit to bring it back to AfD after x months, or what?? How would this work? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Typically when there's a problem with a lack of sources in an article, it should not go directly to AfD as this article did. It doesn't belong at AfD yet. The best course of action is to tag it unsourced, wait a month or two to see if the regular editors who contribute to the article find anything, and if it remains unsourced, then take it to AfD. I feel that this is a premature AfD nomination, especially given the fact that google searching is never going to bring up the sources that this article needs. The people who wrote this article will be the most likely to know where to find the sources, so put a notice on the talk page and maybe they'll come through. Amazinglarry (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean "directly to AfD"? This article has existed since 2004. I think 5 years is enough to wait for a source before an AfD.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean it should have been tagged unsourced and discussed on the talk page before going to AfD. It doesn't matter how long the article has existed, the fact of the matter is that a key step was skipped. Amazinglarry (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point - if it has waited years without a tag, then surely a couple of months with one can't be a big deal? DBaK (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well we have a week now. Does anyone have any realistic leads? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Erm, in many ways, ah, no. As one of my old lecturers used to say, this is where my claim falls to the ground. I might a drop a line to someone at City on the grounds that their IS department should know if anything serious was written about it ... DBaK (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • A good place to look would be Boardwatch magazine, the main BBS-related publication for many years. Unfortunately the contents are not searchable on the internet, maybe someone has access to a library database that includes Boardwatch? Anyone? Amazinglarry (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless coverage in reliable sources can be found. I recognise that it's hard to do so, but we can't accept original research: if no mention of this system exists in reliable sources, then neither should this article. Robofish (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.