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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 16:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VBulletin[edit]

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

Lack of reliable third-party sources to establish the notability of the subject. huji—TALK 22:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a difficult topic to find reliable third party sources as this is forum or bulletin board software. (software for primary sources) ... It is a popular alternative to open source bulletin boards. Talk page illustrates issues in obtaining reliable third party information. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - There is a plethora of information available about vBulletin from third party websites. $-vrt (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure it needs clean-up, but there are plenty of sources to prove notability. Tavix | Talk 01:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are a mess, but the subject is clearly notable. Difficulty in sourcing is not a reason for deletion if the topic is notable and there are at least sources on that. If there are suspect claims that are sourced to self published material, challenge and remove them, but otherwise the article just needs improvement. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of sources available for this topic - see the Google Books link above. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm actually surprised that vBulletin's article is up for AfD. It's a pretty extensive article about a subject I've always assumed to be notable. There are a bit too many references to the vBulletin website, but it simply has to have enough reliable sources elsewhere to use, right? Really, aside from an overuse of primary sources, the article seems to be well fleshed-out. The only complaint I have about the content after quickly skimming is that the main paragraph's a bit short. I'd suggest adding information that establishes the notability of the subject directly after the description. --Tathar (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just noticed that the nomination says "lack of unreliable third-party sources." Shouldn't that be "reliable" instead? --Tathar (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - assuming the nominator meant a lack of reliable sources, there are actually quite a few. Some examples are: [1], [2], and [3]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable topic, plenty of reliable sources available. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I was just wondering if anyone who really believes the article should be kept would be kind enough to actually add references to the article to prove notability? huji—TALK 00:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis is bulletin board software. Significant proof of encyclopaedic notability is needed. Third party coverage from reliable sources are needed.--Whiteguru (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I've already pointed out that sources are available to establish notability above. What do you believe is wrong with them? -- Whpq (talk) 01:13, 1 May 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.