Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filesoup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Aside from all the commented mess... I count 4 deletes, 2 keeps. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Internet forum. Since internet is full of forums, I'd say they are almost by definition not notable. This one is for sharing bittorrent files. As Korath puts it, "copyvioforumvertisement". Radiant! 12:36, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- No Deletion, No reason to delete this article, it is conform to the Encyclopedia and the will to inform --User:anonymous 10:08, 01 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I agree with this sentiment. See discussion on Torrentmind directly above. Inter 21:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, only reason is non-notability. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, i would like to see this deleted too as its not a notable addition.
- unsigned comment by anon user:62.252.128.25 whose other recent edits are being challenged as vandalism
- No Deletion I would support moving this Filesoup article under the bittorrent article. I could edit the bittorrent one to include some community forums for Bittorrent technical help, which is what these sites really are. Burgerpardis
- new user whose only contributions to date have been to this and to the article nominated above. You have to start somewhere Burgerpardis
- No Deletion I quote a Filesoup member: "i don't know if i'd argue for TM, but in defense of the filesoup one, there is a suprnova.org entry and since FS is the oldest/first bittorrent forum website you could probably argue that way" FileSoup isn't just a forum, it is *THE* forum for bittorrent activity. --67.64.43.158 01:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- this is the anonymous user's only edit to Wikipedia
- Delete. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It makes no sense that suprnova.org has an entry, and filesoup can't. As said before, filesoup was founded before suprnova was even a thought. Burgerpardis
- fixed, only one vote.
- Excellent point, Suprnova is now also nominated for deletion. For what it's worth, I believe the best solution would be to put them all in the main BitTorrent site - that's arguably where people would look first. Radiant! 08:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- If you nominate that one for deletion, I may vote to delete it, too. "There are other articles about less notable topics" is not a very useful argument. We know that already; it's a given around here. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No Deletion That makes little sense." 'There are other articles about less notable topics' is not a very useful argument. We know that already" - Then delete them in order of importance, and stop picking on this specific entry. If you know other topics are less-worthy, then go after them first. Common sense. --66.140.73.253 03:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- this is the anonymous user's only edit to Wikipedia
- We delete them in the order in which they were found, because that is the most convenient way of going around things. If you would be so kind as to give us a list of all WikiPedia articles in order of importance, we would start at the low end and delete from there. Until then, well, sorry. Radiant! 08:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- No Deletion That makes little sense." 'There are other articles about less notable topics' is not a very useful argument. We know that already" - Then delete them in order of importance, and stop picking on this specific entry. If you know other topics are less-worthy, then go after them first. Common sense. --66.140.73.253 03:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- fixed, only one vote.
- Keep, though I find the subject distasteful. The usage statistics at the end of the article are impressive and match those listed on the site, and there's no reason to think they're lying. Compare to Torrentmind's "Most users ever online was 74 on Feb 11 2005, 12:00 AM". —Korath (Talk) 09:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- At first glance this one appears borderline, but it does rake in a significant number of hits on google so I'm going to err on the side of keep. —RaD Man (talk) 10:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This first-person primary source historical essay about a web site belongs on the web site itself, not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a hosting service, let alone a web directory. Encyclopaedia-worthy web sites are capable of hosting their own "about" pages. Delete. Uncle G 11:56, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.