Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Solstice BBS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Solstice BBS - see below

Yet Another Internet Forum. Guys - you have a listing here: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Bulletin_Board_Systems/Individual_Systems/ . Wikipedia is not the place to duplicate it. Unless you can measure yourselves with the likes of Slashdot. Ianb 19:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Is not just an advertisement, and is NPOV. --Merovingian✍Talk 12:14, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not an ad, it's not POV - it's just not notable. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oooh, 3000 users, woooow. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Better to have a page that talks about BBS's on a high level then links externally to maintained lists elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is high-level the actual content (source documents) are elsewhere. Like, the entry for the Constitution does not contain the entire Constitution in Wikipedia, it links to it. Stbalbach 08:13, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would it be better if I had an entry for every BBS? --Merovingian✍Talk 07:59, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, Merovingian, but I have to vote delete on this. I do think, in fact, that we have had some years to separate us from the old BBS systems, and articles on those are interesting. However, an article on a current concern seems like boosterism, no matter how carefully written. To me, this seems like advertising, even though it attempts to be descriptive. The systems as opposed to a board, in other words, seem NPOV entities. Geogre 20:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article has popped unexpectedly back onto my watchlist. It seems to have been deleted per above, although there is no note of the deletion taking place, and has now been recreated.

Alas, however nice / worthy the site may be, it still does not appear notable in any shape or form and I see no reason for its reappearance in this online encyclopedia. I also not it has no Alexa ranking. Ianb 16:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Can't this be speedied? Articles that suddenly show back up after being deleted like this usually are. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 21:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought I had rewritten it to make it less advertisement-like. I guess we are basing this on encyclopedic-ness? It's certainly more encyclopedic than some other things that have been accepted into Wikipedia. What are the Alexa ratings of the other BBS's in Category:Bulletin board systems? If just one of them is as low as Solstice's I think we should examine all of them on an all-or-nothing basis. --MerovingianImage:Atombomb.gifTalk 00:54, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems marginally notable. Rhymeless 02:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. 3000 users doesn't make it notable. I'd need evidence of some other form of notability. Average Earthman 08:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable BBS. — Gwalla | Talk 16:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - no mention of any fame in the article even - Tεxτurε 18:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with haste. --Golbez 08:15, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rewriting adverts to make them less obviously adverts comes close to being sneaky vandalism. It is still an advert and still, as far as I can tell, no more notable than thousands of other internet forusm. Jallan 15:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_Solstice_BBS_9bcf.html"