Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleeping Computer

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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeping Computer

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

This seems like a niche portal. Interesting - I am a reader of TechDirt myself - but sadly, it does not seem to be notable, failing WP:NCORP and WP:NWEB and WP:NMEDIA. Except primary sources, the best it has is the minor coverage from similar niche portals, Network World [1] and Digital Trends ([2]), and that coverage is related to one lawsuit (so, WP:ONEVENT logic applies). If anyone can suggest good reasons to save it, I'd love to hear them, but as much as many Wikipedians, including myself, like those kind of portals, they still have to meet our policies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though they are a huge SEO abuser these days, BleepingComputer is the main general tech support forum/helpdesk on the web (compared to Sevenforums or Majorgeeks, which are more specialized). Refs 2 and 4 refer to Bleeping Computer as a place to "post logs" (ask for help) which confers some notability. Wikipedia has a confusing standard when it comes to sites that mix forums and news, but Bleeping Computer is so popular (even just as a forum) that I don't think it should be deleted. Jergling (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BleepingComputer is the primary source of ransomware news. Their ransomware support forums and their news section is the de-facto source for getting help with ransomware infections, which ironically, the main article doesn't mention for some weird reason. If anything, the BC Wikipedia entry needs to contain the right information, not deleted. There are countless of sites that claim to help with ransomware infections, the only difference is that none, except BleepingComputer, has been quoted in almost all major media, ranging from the BBC to ArsTechnica, and from Computerworld to TheNextWeb. If you need me to copy-paste a few hundreds links where the site's reputation speaks for itself, let me know. Campuscodi (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You should do that in the article if you think you can. Don't wait for the PRODer's go-ahead. Jergling (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEBOLD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable in its particular niche. Alexa rank is within the top 5000 sites globally. Shritwod (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources including the BBC reference and the PCWorld references meet WP:RS and establish notability as per WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:28, 19 November 2016 (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.