From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 June 2015

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Archive.is ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

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 am bringing 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. PMID  25541969.

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.

Allow recreation; move User:Lexein/archive.today to Archive.is.

Cunard ( talk) 00:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Support recreation. The delete vote was not unanimous. The discussion could as well have been closed as no consensus given the level of involvement among participants. The sources are there. I added a good one already during the AfD, which was acknowledged by others as reliable, and yet not taken into account in the end. Just like before, I see nothing wrong with having the subject of this entry featured in Wikipedia. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 03:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse- the original close was clearly correct. Allow recreation because of coverage that did not exist at the time. Reyk YO! 06:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse: The original deletion discussion had plenty of delete !votes and only two keep !votes, where neither of the latter fully showed the subject met the GNG or any other notability guideline. Either relist or do not allow recreation: 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. — me_ and 08:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • 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.today'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.today has been studied as an archiving service by academics. Just another data point for editors to consider.

    Cunard ( talk) 05:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse recreation,
A decision that should be done over, with mroe carful attention. DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 June 2015

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Archive.is ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

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 am bringing 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. PMID  25541969.

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.

Allow recreation; move User:Lexein/archive.today to Archive.is.

Cunard ( talk) 00:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Support recreation. The delete vote was not unanimous. The discussion could as well have been closed as no consensus given the level of involvement among participants. The sources are there. I added a good one already during the AfD, which was acknowledged by others as reliable, and yet not taken into account in the end. Just like before, I see nothing wrong with having the subject of this entry featured in Wikipedia. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 03:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse- the original close was clearly correct. Allow recreation because of coverage that did not exist at the time. Reyk YO! 06:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse: The original deletion discussion had plenty of delete !votes and only two keep !votes, where neither of the latter fully showed the subject met the GNG or any other notability guideline. Either relist or do not allow recreation: 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. — me_ and 08:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • 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.today'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.today has been studied as an archiving service by academics. Just another data point for editors to consider.

    Cunard ( talk) 05:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse recreation,
A decision that should be done over, with mroe carful attention. DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook