Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eschwa BBS

Eschwa BBS

SPAM. Vanity. Not notable. Non-encyclopedic. Et al. Ad infinitum. Delete. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 23:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete fvw* 00:16, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
• Delete Sortior 00:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's just a BBS. Geogre 01:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. While I agree that as it stands, the page is merely an advertisement, I believe that the BBS merits a page if properly written. Eschwa BBS is a several-generations removed but very significant descendant of ISCABBS. What difference does this make? ISCABBS was a notable Internet phenomenon in the days before the rise of the web, attracting users from all around the world, up to a thousand simultaneously communicating with each other and hundreds sitting in a queue because the machine couldn't handle them all. It spawned a whole host of DOC-based BBSes once the source got out, along with at least two software clones, YAWC and bbs100; there are multiple small but thriving DOC BBSes in the United States and Latin America. Eschwa is now the largest of these descendants, amazingly managing to carry the torch of text-based BBSing into the 21st century with close to 100 simultaneous users at times. I think that's significant. I can see why one might worry about setting a precedent for BBS ads in Wikipedia, but I think this is notable enough to outweigh that fear; besides, this peer review system will work to quell that. If I have some time, I'll clean up the page this weekend. Neurophyre 17:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page author and I have made changes to the article. Neurophyre 18:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Cribcage 20:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the sentiments that Neurophyre expressed. As the author of this page, I never intended this entry to be an advertisement (SPAM) or any kind of vanity. I admit to having phrased it as such, and I regret that - I think that I have corrected this flaw. My rationale in keeping this is that BBSes are an important, but frequently overlooked, part of internet history. I believe this entry is notable as there are hundreds of users, often a hundred online at a time. The user base is actually growing. The fact that it is a text based BBS with no web presence or any kind of "easy access" interface is unusual, if not interesting - the fact that it is a direct decendant of ISCABBS makes it notable. It seems that I am not the only one who thinks this is notable, the Bulletin board system entry states: "Several BBS systems connected directly to the Internet, ... A few are still extant (as of 2004)." Would you strike that sentence from the entry? This is one of those few BBSes, if that sentence qualifies - then a list of those BBSes qualifies. Again, If it had only one or two users, it would not be notable - but hundreds of users and a direct descendant of one of the largest telnet based BBSes of all time. It is, at the very least, an interesting footnote in internet history. I think that ISCABBS is even more notable, and wish that someone would fill out that entry on it with more history. It existed for much longer than many of the more famous dial up and internet BBSes and has had many more users, (i know that it goes back at least to 1988 with many thousands of users - my user id there is over 500000.) -- Trysha 10:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• keep passes the google test. -- WhiteDragon 22:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)