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,
Poeticbenttalk03:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse- the original close was clearly correct. Allow recreation because of coverage that did not exist at the time.
ReykYO!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_
and08:58, 2 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.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.
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,
Poeticbenttalk03:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse- the original close was clearly correct. Allow recreation because of coverage that did not exist at the time.
ReykYO!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_
and08:58, 2 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.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.