Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyBB

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There's no doubt that this is a popular forum package and it might even be "notable" in a real world sense but even the "keep" !voters here concede that they are having trouble "demonstrating" that notability. In other words, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject which is unfortunately what is required to demonstrate that notability. That being said, I found the comments calling Tim's participation in this discussion "disruptive" completely uncalled for and bitey. He declared his COI and said his peace, there is nothing disruptive about that. It's up to the closer to decide how much weight it should get. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MyBB[edit]

MyBB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have made a good faith effort to identify reliable sources for this product but have been unable to do so. Given the age of the product, one cannot suspect a WP:FUTON problem. An article on the identical topic was deleted last year when the outcome of a deletion discussion was that the product was not notable. Bongomatic 22:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ok, here is the problem: I am seeing around 2.9 million hits for 'MyBB review' (over 40 million for just MyBB), and lots and LOTS of people talking about the software, just not in reliable source in the first few pages. I'm seeing news hits but they are incidental (bug traq, etc.). My gut feeling says this is notable and should be kept, but I just haven't found any wp:rs sources yet, will keep looking. I might even be temped to say keep using WP:IAR simply because so many people are talking about it, just in the 'wrong places'. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, now finding dozens of sites offering free (or cheap) MyBB services, dozens of sites dedicated to "add ons" for MyBB, hundreds of thousands of sites (yes, forums) talking about it, and so much incidental coverage that I have no choice but to conclude that the software IS notable. Verification is an issue, but I would rather leave that for article, not for AFD, and just swim through the millions of hits to find something. I understand why it went to AFD, it isn't easy to find quick WP:RS for it, but the volume of traffic regarding the subject matter proves (to me) that the subject is notable and that the problem is my ability to quickly find wp:v. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This amounts to a WP:GHITS argument, which has no validity. Please find specific instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 08:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Generally, I would agree, but this adds to a WP:IAR argument instead, something I don't do every day. In otherwords, the sheer volume of hits on the software tells me that it is a widely used free software package. It has been around for many years, and is accepted enough that several companies are using the MyBB name in their advertising to draw new business. It is very widely known. It is an exception to GNG using "common sense" per WP:IAR, but a valid one considering the totality of the coverage. There is a reason we have a guideline named Ignore All Rules, and my experience has been that in very limited circumstances, like this one, it would be appropriate since keeping it adds more to Wikipedia than deleting it. I would ask to please dig a little into the un-reliable sources before committing to a delete, and see if the weight doesn't qualify. It won't be a crime if it is deleted, but I'm convinced that inclusion would be within the spirit of the guidelines here. May tag for rescue as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me the conclusion is opposite. It has been around for a long time and adopted to a degree, but (given the prevalence of forum software, and guides to implementation of forums), the fact that this doesn't appear to have been given any significant coverage in surveys, implementation guides, or independent reviews suggest that the large number of hits reflects something other than notability (high numbers of hits from the same or similar sources, or some artifact of copied text). Bongomatic 12:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell, there are a few days left and it is tagged for rescue. Unlike most articles, the problem here is having too many webhits to fish through. Keep in mind that 'forum software' typically isn't reviewed by the NYTimes, it is reviewed by sites generally considered to not pass WP:RS. There are a few reviews out there, they just don't pass RS, as well as lots of coverage that falls short. Lots, which is the issue to me. I understand why we have WP:RS, but my point is the sheer volume of reviews and comments by sincere and experienced computer administrators out there, in 'non-reliable' sources shouldn't be completely dismissed out of hand. Will see what I can dig up later as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article is almost exclusively sourced to topic's own websites, and no evidence of reliable third party sourcing is apparent through Google News or Books. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At their "about" page http://www.mybb.com/about/mybb they say they are excited when they gained over a thousand users a month back in 2006. I assumed they gained more than that since then, just forgot to update that in the past five years. When Googling for www.mybb.com I get 36,000,000 results. I don't see how they could get 36 million places to link to them, unless they had a considerably large number of people using this. Cnet and others don't talk about it at all though. That is strange. Dream Focus 15:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is my thinking. Someone has added some RS sources, but it is odd to have SO much traction in 'un'reliable sources, so many hits, yet so few reviews that pass RS. I've tried working on it, but it still needs work and will for a while, assuming it is kept. Much of the media tends to ignore 'free' software, I guess because they don't buy ads. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Why review something that is free, when their competition that isn't free is what is paying for ads? When I Google for "Powered By MyBB" I end up with "About 145,000,000 results". Of course the "Powered by MyBB" is at the bottom of every thread perhaps, not just there one time for each place that uses it. This software is surely notable, do to how many people use it. Changing my vote to keep instead of ? Dream Focus 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of WP:GHITS, no reliable sources. The 36 million hits above—like the "Powered by MyBB" hits—aren't from different sites, and many if not the vast majority are machine generated.
The argument that free software is not reviewed or discussed in detail in independent reliable sources is simply false. There are literally thousands of books and articles dedicated to scads of notable free software packages that have non-free competing products. Bongomatic 02:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get 16 book results when I search for "MyBB" and the word "forum". [1] Dream Focus 11:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS do not indicate substantive coverage -- many (most?) of these book hits appear to be mere mention in passing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:

Hi, my name is Tim and I am the product manager for MyBB. We have been experiencing issues with our wikipedia page being deleted for years and it is quite perplexing. We last fought this battle in February last year and it is unfortunate that it has come up again. I don't think there should be any doubt about the significance of our software, some very significant organisations use our software, for example:

Additionally, we don't publish our download statistics but I can tell you that our last major release (MyBB 1.6) had close to 200,000 downloads and considering a significant portion of users don't keep up to date with the latest version our actual user base would be significantly larger than this. Our official support forums alone have over 40,000 members and half a million posts.

We are the third largest free forum software project, behind PHPBB and SMF, this is supported by Alexa's results.

We have awards including the best free forum software by user votes on forum-software.org in 2008 and 2010.

There are plenty of reviews around the place for us including:

Plus here are some other examples of our significance:

To be honest I don't really see why our page is up for deletion when some other very similar projects are not:

  • PhpBB - Almost all the sources are from the phpBB website.
  • Simple_Machines_Forum - Very few references, many from their own website also.
  • FluxBB - Far smaller userbase then us.
  • Beehive_Forum - I had never even heard of them even though I run a project in the industry.

Truth be told we are not all that familiar with the processes that go on here at Wikipedia so we would appreciate any assistance in resolving this issue and hopefully ensuring it doesn't come up again.

Cheers, Tim.

MyBB Tim (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, major companies use your forum software. Did you get Cnet or Wired or anyone major to ever review your software? That's what it usually takes to convince everyone something is notable. Anywhere which doesn't just allow anyone to post a review or an entry, but has an actual staff reviewing things. Dream Focus 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me clarify Dream Focus 's comment, (if I may). He and I both agree the software is notable, but are having trouble demonstrating this fact. What we need is a link to one or two webpages from what we call "reliable sources" that talk about the software in a non-trivial way. This would include reviews, comparisons, etc. Reliable sources would mean mainstream websites that don't exist only to provide download links, are not pure blogs, etc. Download.com would not quality, for example. Then we simply cite the example within the article, and I'm pretty sure the problem goes away. The problems is that many of the citations are from your website (can't be used to demonstrate notability as defined at Wikipedia. Give us a couple of links, we can do the rest. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a download link right next to the product name. I'd like to understand how the EL/RS criteria make shininess relevant. Bongomatic 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: MyBB Tim's lengthy comment is irrelevant, in gross violation of WP:COI and is disruptive of this AfD. It should be removed, and this user should not be encouraged to further violate WP:COI by further participating here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest is only for editing the article. Not for helping find sources in an AFD. And it is not disruptive. You considering something irrelevant is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Complete bollocks! WP:COI#How to avoid COI edits: "Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: ... Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;" (emphasis in original) -- MyBB Tim neither avoided, nor exercised great care. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#why_shouldn.27t_a_company_help_find_sources_in_a_deletion_discussion.3F I suggested changing the wording to something less vague. "Exercise great caution" doesn't really mean anything. I suggested it just say they should identify themselves. Dream Focus 01:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim's comment is relevant as it concerns none other that the subject of the AfD, and he both disclaimed his position himself properly and made no !vote. As for being disruptive, the problem in this case is that software of this level is reviewed erratically, which makes for scarce references. That is accentuated by the simple and short name of the product, and it seems reasonable that Tim may have knowledge of reliable sources that we are missing. As for being lengthy, that's what TLDR is for - frankieMR (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant, in that it is not relevant to any notability guideline, or any policy relevant to deletion. It is disruptive in that it is a large dump of irrelevant information smack in the middle of the AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I considered Tim's comments constructive and informative to this debate, and was right on topic. I would have even if I was on the other side of the issue. You are welcome to reformat his comment (without changing the contents, of course) if you like. We do that here when appropriate, don't we? It wouldn't be expected that a new user would understand how we format things, and it isn't nice to bite the new users. The edit seems to be in good faith, so I would be opposed to blocking it. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I too find Tim's comments instructive. He demonstrates that even those most aware of the coverage of the product cannot point to any significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 22:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't !voted here, but I think as long as an editor discloses their COI and avoids editing the article one can hardly call it disruption. It looks like he made a good faith effort to help us find sources, so I don't see what the problem is. I've seen disruptive COI editing a time or two, and this ain't it. He didn't even !vote Keep. If his comment is too long someone can just collapse it for readability. Also, WP:BITE may be applicable here. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources used in this article are as reliable as the sources used in other comparable articles, namely vBulletin. There is no official entity that reviews bulletin board softwares, but it doesn't make the subject unnotable. There are no serious claims made in the article, and no debatable comparison is made, so the sources are "good enough" for the informative purpose. huji—TALK 01:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS addresses this argument square on. I agree that the sourcing for those articles is terrible—someone should try to do better or nominate them. Bongomatic 04:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The sources used in this article are" almost exclusively MyBB's own website. How does that meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not every source is from their website. There is coverage which some have said is notable elsewhere. http://www.forum-software.org/mybb/review for example. Dream Focus 08:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Bongo: I think I failed to make my point. I didn't mean to say the article should be kept because of the other articles (which is of course not a good justification, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). What I meant to say was that there are no highly reliable sources in this area, but there are a number of relatively reliable sources (used in the article or mentioned above by User:MyBB Tim), which can show that MyBB is in widespread use and is comparable to the other well known softwares in the same field, so it is as much notable as other competitors and deserves an article on Wikipedia. huji—TALK 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No matter how popular something may be, being the subject of an article requires coverage by reliable third-party sources (WP:V#Notability). Such sources are not in evidence. The ones cited in the article are not by third parties and/or not reliable because they are self-published (blogs, forums etc.), including the forum-software.org link given above.  Sandstein  09:55, 23 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MyBB&oldid=1069117613"