Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torrent Typhoon

Add links
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. Postdlf 04:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent Typhoon

[edit]

Bear with me. I am not sure which thing on the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not this fits but...if you go to the torrent typhoon main site and click on "About", it eventually points to this particular wikipedia page. It either violates Wikipedia is not a mirror or Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. In either case, its a deletion candidate. On top of everything else, its an advertisement for the site. --Woohookitty 00:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with submitter. See: [1]. Apparently wikipedia is being used to provide an easy-to-update page for the vendor in lieu of updating a page on their site.

--Tabor 00:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ended up on the wikipedia article through that same link. This is an abuse of Wikipedia. Oska 02:42, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence this site is encyclopedic; The page is POV and promotional. However I disagree with the nominator and a couple of the above votes about the reasons for deletion. If this were to be a good Wikipedia article, there would be no objection to the site linking to us. We should evaluate the article according to the same criteria as any other. Perhaps, in time, we should expand the guidelines of Wikipedia:autobiography to include promotions such as this? Andrewa 05:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I see little difference in the content from that found in say Microsoft Windows. If it is POV then we can change it. --Rjstott 05:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This website has existed for less than two weeks, and it's not yet known how many people will ever know of it. Microsoft Windows has been available for twenty years and nearly all the computer users in the world know of it. If you don't think that's a significant difference, fair enough. I do, so no change of vote. Andrewa 11:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Rjstott, I'm not sure you quite understand what they did. They basically are pointing their website back to a Wikipedia article, which is very very against policy. Very. :) Content doesn't matter that much, honestly. --Woohookitty 05:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment. I think I understand perfectly well and wonder what the fuss is about. Both of the policies cited need a serious stretch of imagination to cover this situation if it is really seen as a no-no. Do you suggest that if the referring web-site had a copy of this then it is ok. There is serious merit in having a definitive view and that that definition would be the one in Wikipedia. The problem I see is that the creator of the page might suppress any change and keep it POV. However the rules of Wikipedia would sort that out and have already given the article Public Domain status?--Rjstott 09:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Woohookitty, how do you feel about this blog entry from a Macromedia employee? --guest 00:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert here, but I'd vote Kill simply because this is POV and reads like a brochure. It may be good, but is it NPOV ? --Simon Cursitor 09:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Our deletion policy doesn't support deletion of articles simply because the content is POV. Needs a lot of cleanup to remove the superlatives and whatnot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree that POV is not an issue regarding deletion, this is a very important point. But the issue here is that this article is promotional by its very nature. It's not a notable site, not yet at least. It has only even existed for two weeks. No change of vote. Andrewa 15:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I have now edited it to remove the promotional language. The subject is probably NN because it's so new, but I could be persuaded otherwise by someone familiar with the BitTorrent community. FreplySpang (talk) 12:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This web site was created on April 18th, 2005 -- almost two weeks ago. So I agree that it is not notable yet, unless someone provides evidence to the contrary. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The site probably isn't notable yet. — P Ingerson - Talk - Contribs 13:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is much condensed now, and I put all the information that was on it on my About page... so I think it is fine now. If growing 7500% (literally) in 1 week doesn't constitute "notable" I do not know what is (Source: Publicly-viewable stats page). --SubKamran 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. OK, I'm satisfied. I'll even add a link to the main site for you. My main objection, which was the fact that it was pointing back to Wikipedia, has been taken care of. Thank you. --Woohookitty 19:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Struck my keep vote. Right, still doesn't hit notability. My bad. I shall slap myself silly. ;-) --Woohookitty 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not yet. "We have served 19704 searches," says its front page. For a search engine, that's nothing. The article says it "will search the major torrent websites and pool their results onto one page;" so it's a metasearch engine, or a script that relies entirely on results from other sites. It's longstanding official policy that Wikipedia is not a web guide, or a vehicle for self-promotion. I can't see squaring this with a keep vote, or I could write my own metasearch script and spread notice around and have a Wikipedia article the next week. I hope keep voters understand how low this would set the bar for the notability of websites. Userfy to User:SubKamran or a subpage, without a redirect from the main article space. Bring it back to the main article space if and when it starts getting cited in major media, hitting the high ranks in Alexa, etc, and if someone other than the person behind the site puts it there. Samaritan 20:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notability is all very well to apply to people (because there are so many of us and we're vain and like to see our names on websites, and most of us aren't of much interest to anyone beyond our families) but here we have a publicly available (if very new) website and an article containing verifiable information about it. That is all that Wikipedia policy requires of an article. An article about a website of this type doesn't have to establish "notability". The question is whether or not it's an accurate article about a website that people may wonder if they want to use. They could try the website if they knew (or guessed) the URL or they could enter the name in Google and be brought to Wikipedia to read about it first. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I disagree with ya a bit, Tony. I think notability is an issue no matter whether it's a company or a person. Otherwise, Wikipedia could very easily become a web directory and it shouldn't be. I mean I work for a small ISP in Wisconsin that has 7,000 users. Are we public? yep. Are we notable? No. We're just a plain ISP. The problem with opening up that can of worms is that Wikipedia is not meant to be a web directory. Once Typhoon Torrent becomes well known, great. Otherwise (and especially in an age where using open source materials, anyone can make a program), we're opening ourselves up to alot of crapola that doesn't belong here. You describe it as whether or not its an accurate article about a website that people may wonder if they want to use. Isn't that a description of a web directory or search engine? That's what web directories or search engines are for, NOT an encyclopedia. --Woohookitty 22:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert, non-notable, WP is not a web directory. Quale 22:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it proves its notability in the long run, a better article will organically reappear. In the mean time, they shouldn't use wiki as free advertising. Feco 05:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I fail to see how it is advertising now that all the fluff has been removed and I do not link back to it anymore. All in all, I don't mind if it's deleted if it goes against WikiPedia's policies. Let's examine it now: 1) "or vehicle for propaganda and advertising" -- The article is now in a neutral point of view, no advertising, I do not link back to it anymore. The article provides a brief and concise explanation to what Torrent Typhoon is. But like I said, I will not cry if you remove it if it goes against policies. --SubKamran 1 May 2005
  • Wait and see - it can always be re-nominated for vfd if the article fails to develop. -- BDAbramson thimk 03:03, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
    • Comment: An enormously significant precedent if we adopt it. Will we similarly defer deletion of every website article, every garage band vanity, to see whether they develop? For how long? No change of vote. Andrewa 19:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I meant wait and see if the article develops, not if the company develops... but your point is well taken. I change to no vote. -- BDAbramson thimk 19:48, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. Tobycat 01:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Become notable first, write article later. Gamaliel 08:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Torrent_Typhoon&oldid=1140229099"