Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.is

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 June 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.is

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

Fails WP:GNG; nearest thing to a reliable independent source I can find is this blog, which appears to be a university department blog. Subject may gain notability in future, but doesn't have it yet. —me_and 18:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are there, no question about it. Obviously notable, considering its practical purpose. And, why are we here exactly? Poeticbent talk 19:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE - notability is not conferred by usefulness. As for the "no question" sources, there are in fact eight of them currently in the article...five of which are the site itself. Of the remining three two do not appear to be reliable sources, and the third is Alexa which is only used to source its rank. Searches are confounded by "...archive is..." results, but there does not appear to be anything that can establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a very good article about it from the Web Science and Digital Libraries Research Group at Old Dominion University. The fact that it has been posted at blogspot is completely irrelevant in this case; a matter of convenience. Poeticbent talk 20:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one, then. Are there others that provide in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs better sourcing. I just deleted a wiki used as a source. There is a discussion about a block evading bot using massive numbers of proxies to install links to archive.is at the moment: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_rollbacks_required. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wiki.dandascalescu.com is not a wiki in a sence of website everyone can edit. It is Dan Dascalescu web site. He is one of the authors of the MojoMojo. No wonder that he uses the same software (and wiki. subdomain) as a CMS of the site he owns. 77.255.95.230 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is much worse than the article about WebCite and worse than Archive.is articles in the other wikis. It does not explain what the service does, how to use it and how it is related to the wiki projects. Perhaps, another attempt to write the article from scratch would be more successful. 77.255.95.230 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless one more reliable source can be found such as the one brought in by Poeticbent. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editorial policy of CrunchBase is: [1]
Currently, all additions and edits to CrunchBase go through an approval process before they are pushed live. We are working on ways that will allow users to make immediate changes to the site.
—rybec 20:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means simply that they check to make sure it's not spam/obscene/etc., not that it's fact-checked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can find more reliable significant coverage. As it is, it's pretty weak. (Funny enough, it's been used here on Wikipedia for dead/dying links. [2]) MithrandirAgain (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best source that can be found is a blog by a non-notable student group. The group is led by Michael L. Nelson who has an interest in internet archiving, and has published documents on the topic, but he is not notable in himself, and the research group's work does not appear to be widely cited. Archive.is is a start up^{[citation needed]} operation, and if it does establish itself in a year or two's time, and becomes notable, that is when we should have an article on it. But at the moment there is not enough verifiable information to consider Archive.is as notable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Herbert Van de Sompel is member of this non-notable group. 77.110.134.11 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had the article in mind and been waiting for some quality sources to surface that would address the notability issue. However, the bottom line is there is only one quality source, but besides generic description, it mostly just covers one specific functionality. Thus, the topic fails the WP:GNG with no multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources. As for arguments of usefulness and use within Wikipedia, this is irrelevant. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This site is the same notoriety than WebCite and Wayback Machine. Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Bushranger's comment, it is not enough you claim WP:ITSNOTABLE, you have to show how according to our guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:39, 23 September 2013 (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.