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]

Archive.is[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominated for deletion for further discussion of the sources per a comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 1#Archive.is: "Either relist or do not allow recreation". I will express my view to keep below. Cunard (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
Archive.is was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.is in September 2013.
A list of Archive.is–related discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 14#Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. Two RfCs are Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. Because the topic has been contentious, I brought this to DRV for community review of new sources that did not exist when the AfD took place.

Here are three reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Archive.is:
1. 山口真弘 (2014-06-01). "［ウェブサービスレビュー］ZIPや画像のダウンロードにも対応した魚拓サービス「Archive.today」" (in Japanese). CNET. Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
2. Козлов, Алексей (2014-08-11). "Сайт дня: archive.today - альтернативный бэкап для "всего интернета"". Ferra.ru (in Russian). Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
  According to the Russian Wikipedia article ru:Ferra.ru, Ferra.ru is a magazine.
3. Koebler, Jason (2014-10-29). "Dear GamerGate: Please Stop Stealing Our Shit". Vice. Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
Archive.is also received some coverage in two journal articles:
1. Brunelle, Justin F.; Kelly, Mat; Weigle, Michele C.; Nelson, Michael L. (2015-01-25). "The impact of JavaScript on archivability". International Journal on Digital Libraries. 17 (2). Springer Science+Business Media: 95–117. doi:10.1007/s00799-015-0140-8. S2CID 254074456. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
2. Klein, Martin; Van de Sompel, Herbert; Sanderson, Robert; Shankar, Harihar; Balakireva, Lyudmila; Zhou, Ke; Tobin, Richard (2014-12-26). "Scholarly Context Not Found: One in Five Articles Suffers from Reference Rot". PLOS ONE. 9 (12). PLOS: e115253. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9k5253K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115253.
The current name of the archiving service is Archive.is, not Archive.today. See the May 3, 2015, blog post http://blog.archive.is/post/118010496181/why-did-you-change-the-url-back-from-archive-today^WebCite.

Analysis of the sources

The Ferra.ru article provides detailed analysis about Archive.is (link to Google Translate where the translated text below is from; bolding added for emphasis and italics for my own comments):
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.
Cunard (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging participants User:Poeticbent, User:Reyk, me_and (talk · contribs), and DGG (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cunard, this appears to be canvassing. Is there a neutral reason that only those who supported the recreation of the article were pinged? GregJackP Boomer! 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.
Cunard (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources Poeticbent talk 03:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Do not forget to ping User:Kww, User:Beetstra and User:Hasteur; they would be upset if the decision is made without them. 90.178.108.190 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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? Ghostwheel ʘ 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the website is notable. --Anar chyte 03:28, 13 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. Ghostwheel ʘ 04:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:29, 14 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.