Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProBoards

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ProBoards[edit]

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

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lacking sources; yes. However, along with Invision Power Board and vBulletin, one of the most popular forum software packages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Lack of third party sources needed to establish notability, so assertion of "popularity" seems to be WP:OR. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. The references in the actual article are poor, but I did find some fairly extensive coverage in books, including third party how-to and reference books[1][2][3] which would seem to pass the notability hurdle. This software and service is targeted at the general public. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 26 January 2011 (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.