Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Internet Backgammon Server

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. That's not an endorsement of some of the more thoughtless "keep" comments. Sandstein (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Internet Backgammon Server[edit]

Non-notable game server. No sources outside of the server's FAQ website. Fails all notability criteria at WP:WEB. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absurd nomination. Everyone who plays backgammon seriously knows this is notable. 35,900 google hits at "FIBS backgammon". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those hits satisfies even one of the criteria at WP:WEB. The first hits are primary sources and this article. WP:NOT#INTERNET. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does assert notability (of a sort) by being the first backgammon server, but neither this nor the rest of the article is backed by any reliable sources. Besides, even if true that wouldn't pass WP:WEB by itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to give this the benefit of the doubt, because of Seven J. Anderson's statement above and a Google search that turns up several reliable sources that all treat this subject as a well-established thing while discussing something else. Because of the topic's age, and our biased search methods (Google, which finds new things), I think it is reasonable to assume there is reliable coverage we are missing. Does anyone have some '90s backgammon magazines lying around? User:Krator (t c) 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:WEB is a standard that applies to web content. FIBS is not web content or any other kind of content. It's a server located in San Francisco that's accessed through a TELNET connection. TELNET was created in 1969, twenty years before the introduction of the World Wide Web. It makes no more sense to apply a set of criteria to FIBS that were devised to evaluate the notability of web content than it would to apply the notability criteria used for books or movies. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ha! Anderson makes the obvious point that all the rest of us had missed. Also, a lack of reliable sources is only grounds for deletion when the state of affairs has been investigated and found unfixable by reasonable present means, is it not? We're a work in progress, as much now as when the red links were in the majority. --Kiz o r 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may want to read the guideline. Here's what it says: Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Evidently someone did anticipate its application to material that is on "the internets" but not, technically, on the web. Additionally, the specialized guidelines such as WP:WEB or WP:BIO are intended to be merely implementations of the overall notability guideline; they should not be forks. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources in Google Books lend it notability. I'll add a few. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable sources exist to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability guidelines do have the [[occasional exception[1]]]. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I have been a registered member of fibs since the early 90's and I am on FIBS many times every week (I have over 50,000 experience points). I have met and played with some of the best BG players in the world and have learned a lot. Many avid BG players know about it and frequent FIBS regularly. FIBS also has a community like atmosphere that does not exist on other gaming sites. Finally, it is a site for technical BG innovation, like the rating system, AI bots like snowie and JF, reputation bots etc.

Note also that FIBS is free and always has been free. No advertising. No play for money pitches.

To simply delete this reference because FIBS is a 'server' and the notability guidelines were written for web sites, would be an injustice to anyone who wants to learn and improve their game. We need to share information, not suppress it.averyk

— Averyk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Though the article doesn't mention them, FIBS has had a tremendous impact on the backgammon world. It was the trial ground for Gerry Tesauro's TD Gammon, a research neural network created at IBM. Many of the leading backgammon bots have had their live trials on FIBS, and many world-class backgammon experts have played there over the years. The FIBS ratings formula, a modified version of chess's ELO formula, has influenced most of the backgammon ratings systems in existence-- "FIBS rating" is still the standard for measuring a player's skill. FIBS was instrumental in growing live tournament backgammon during the 90s-- many players discovered backgammon on FIBS and went on to play live tournaments. whipartist

— Whipartist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (It's true. However, I'm certainly a subject-matter expert.)

Keep. Pros: (1) I concur with whipartist. (2) It's of historical interest as the first backgammon server and of social interest as a central backgammon playground. (3) A plethora of pertinent websites refers to FIBS, meeting criteria 1 from WP:WEB. Cons: No sources outside the web I'm aware of (but otoh that's not too surprising). Web articles are often just trivial. Conclusion: Wide-spread interest in FIBS (even though often not in depth) and the historical importance indicate that keeping it provides relevant information to the general public.-- Peter Schneider (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is nuts. FIBS is a notorious site for flames, and I've seen users flame me here on WIKI in the FIBS article (review changes). As a perspective, when FIBS was created in 1992, there was also an attempt to set up an email backgammon server (and guess where that went!). FIBS was a platform for research into a breakthrough in Artificial Neural Networks. Perhaps WIKI needs protection from flamers and spammers who will corrupt individual entries, but what lunatic wants to remove a reference to a pioneering site on the Internet? (Don Hanlen) Don1andonly (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Don1andonly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.