Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBlog
- 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 Mr.Z-man 01:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article from 2004, and unreferenced ever since. I stumbled upon it when it was mentioned in the context of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS elsewhere. Some research of my own revealed [1] as an independent reference, a not-so-notability-proving SecurityFocus vulnerability entry, and a ton of... well, blogs. Lots of Ghits, but little WP:RS and I'm not so sure about WP:N No opinion from me, but I'd like that the community evaluates the product's notability. Duja► 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not a great article, but pretty standard for Wikipedia software stubs. If a bunch of people use it, there's a good chance it's notable. Shalom Hello 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as a note: the post-id vulnerability was fixed in the last release. thoughm as a former developer, i do not recommend to use it any more; still, some people do. Pixelpope 10:33, 24 September 2007 (CET)
- Weak Keep. This article illustrates the difficulty of proving notability for software. It seems to be fairly widely used, but it's hard to find independent reliable sources to show it. I'm defaulting to 'Keep' here out of uncertainty more than anything else, but would have no objection to seeing the article deleted instead. Terraxos 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
- Keep. Just notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete posibility of notability has come and gone. Time to let go. --Gavin Collins 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources that would help to show notability. It is hard to justify extensive Google searching by AfD participants to evaluate the impact of software that seems like it hasn't been maintained or enhanced in a long time. The above note by User:Pixelpope says that the last release was in June 2005. At bblog.com, the Forum doesn't work, so it's impossible to know if there is any current activity. bBlog appears to have been superseded by Loquacity. EdJohnston 03:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, due to lack of independent sources. What standard do we want to use for saying it's "fairly widely used"? Unless there are secondary sources to prove notability, the article should be removed. --B. Wolterding 16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In 2004 I mightve given it the benefit of the doubt. In 2007 its an easy choice. Mbisanz 22:13, 29 September 2007 (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.
