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. There is a rough consensus here that the main notability guideline has been met.
Davewild (
talk) 06:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)reply
In fact archive.today - is an alternative clone of the famous project Wayback Machine. True archive.today does not work automatically, and upon request, so that it would be correct to put on a par with Peeep.us or Perma.cc.[My comment: This compares archive.today to two other archiving services that also don't automatically archive URLs.] You never know where some of these sites suddenly block, so it makes sense to have them all bookmarked.
Site archive.today not really famous, but they are actively using. Search on base archive.today find thousands of pages, each of which was saved by someone. Not bad for a project with private financing.
It is worth noting that the services, making snapshots of pages differ in quality. The modern web standards are so complex that some browsers are not always the same understanding. Often a snapshot gets not all content pages. In this regard archive.today good enough.[My comment: This praises archive.today's quality in archiving pages.] It normally keeps even vebdvanolnyh page, the content of which is loaded scripts. Sami snapshot scripts are not included, so save forever page with the virus will fail.
...
From a technical standpoint archive.today - a useful and timely tool.[My comment: This article is clearly a review of archive.today.]
The Japanese article from
CNET Japan (
link to Google Translate) provides a very detailed overview of how the website works, sprinkling commentary throughout. It says that Archive.today has "unusual features" like downloading the archived page as an image or as a zip file (which, from my observation, other archiving sites like
Wayback Machine and
WebCite do not provide). The review notes that Archive.is's "reproducibility of the [archived] page" is "high". It further notes in a caption (from Google Translate): "Japanese also can be displayed without garbage properly, the font of the recall is also high."
This isn't merely a description. It further provides commentary about Archive.today's features and quality.
I am not using the journal articles to satisfy the "significant coverage" clause in
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I am listing the articles here to show that Archive.is has been studied as an archiving service by academics. Just another data point for editors to consider.
Comment:
Cunard, this appears to be
canvassing. Is there a neutral reason that only those who supported the recreation of the article were pinged? GregJackPBoomer! 06:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
@
GregJackP: I was one of the users who was pinged, and I don't support recreation. I don't understand why
Cunard didn't ping everyone, but I don't think they picked the users to ping based on who was supporting recreation. —
me_
and 13:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I contacted all of the editors at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 1#Archive.is because this discussion is an extension of the DRV. I have removed the canvassing note that was applied to
Poeticbent (
talk·contribs)'s comment. If it is to be restored, it must also be added to me_and's and DGG's comments.
Delete. The Russian article is merely rewording of the now-deleted articled in Russian Wikipedia.
The article in Vice is rather critical and raises questions about copyright and legality of web archiving. Also, archive.is is involved in the
GamerGate controversy that said its wiki and talk pages will be ready battlefield for the gamergaters.
90.178.108.190 (
talk) 11:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Unless the Russian Wikipedia article contained a lot of commentary and analysis of Archive.is, I don't see how they are similar. I believe the Russian Wikipedia has the same requirement as the English Wikipedia's that articles be written neutrally which would prohibit analysis about Archive.is. And that Archive.is is involved in the Gamergate controversy that could cause it to be a battlefield isn't a policy-based reason for deletion.
Cunard (
talk) 06:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)reply
English wiki or another wiki is not a reliable source. An online magazine having column "site of the day" filled with slighly reworded articles from the wiki (atlhough is legal under Creative Commons) is not a reliable source as well. Otherwise there will be reference loops.
Delete. Quoting my argument from
the deletion review: The CNET Japan and Ferra.ru articles only seem to be providing basic descriptions of the service, which I don't think meets the "significant coverage" requirement of GNG; the PLOS ONE article only has incidental coverage anyway, and I can't access the IJoDL article, but based on OP's summary I'm assuming that is also only incidental coverage. That only leaves the Vice article as clearly providing significant coverage. Thus it doesn't meet
GNG and I don't see any other notability guideline that it does meet. —
me_
and 13:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
In my "Analysis of the sources" section above, I explained why I believed the CNET Japan and Ferra.ru sources went beyond "providing basic descriptions of the service" to actually reviewing and analyzing Archive.is.
Cunard (
talk) 06:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I continue to consider the coverage sufficient to imply enough importance for notability. I additionally feel with have some degree of special responsibility to cover services of this nature DGG (
talk ) 15:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Just out of curiosity, why do we have a "special responsibility to cover services of this nature" and where in policy is that kind of reasoning?
Ghostwheelʘ 04:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Majority of citations are to the site itself or to blogs.
Stifle (
talk) 08:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep for now, and review in six months. DGG is right, I think. Guy (
Help!) 08:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep this does seem to meet the minimum threshold of
WP:GNG with the current sources it has. I think it might be a good idea to review again in 6 months per
User:Guy above.
Ghostwheelʘ 04:28, 13 June 2015 (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.