Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gpirate

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 January 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gpirate

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Spammy. I don't think that reliable sources provide enough substantial coverage to pass WP:N. – wodup – 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - No apparent reliable sources to establish notability. As it was established in 2008, there may not have been enough time to establish notability. Could happen in the future, but not yet.--kelapstick (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From what I can tell, this does not satisfy the notability requirements for web content. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I stubified the article to remove unsourced, non-encyclopedic statements. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note2 - My improvements to the article were reverted by Klingali, so I guess he wants this to go. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose (inferred) Site is the top torrent search engine.. I hope wikipedia mentions this service as torrents are about three fourths of the web traffic and this is the cleanest search engine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingali (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC) — Klingali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

gpirate is an important free service

torrents are the most valuable form of downlaods for people of developing countries

Gpirate intends to keep it free and usable for most people

GPirate is a new search engine, that aims to organize all the world's torrents in the most efficient way. The site is now live and currently indexes over 1 million torrents.

Torrents and the Bit-Torrent protocol contribute to about 1/4 of all the world's internet traffic and we will help you find your needle in that huge haystack.

PLEASE DONT Delete this - you are doing a disservice to users

Let other users fix and clean the article but do not remove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingali (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 January 2009

Note - the three main editors of Gpirate appear to be SPAs and I wouldn't be surprised if they are the same person. [1], [2], [3] LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB; obvious COI issues; article makes grandiose, blustery statements ("Gpirate discovers all the tv shows from around the world") and uses peacock terms. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep: even thought grandiose it is true, this is the exhaustive list of all tv shows in the whole world - http://www.gpirate.com/tv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinjajames (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC) — Jinjajames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from WP:WEB, those are grounds for repair, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete: I am not Linguistatlarge or the other person. I am a user of Gpirate and it is a service i have come to rely upon everyday.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingali (talk • contribs) 07:08, 21 January 2009

Query: you understand that this is a discussion about deleting the wikipedia page, not getting rid of Gpirate itself, right? I don't understand why it's relevant that you use it? I use several piece of software every day, but that doesn't make them notable enough to have a WP entry. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good - I have not come across a single bad review of gpirate so far in all my browsing for content—Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingali (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 January 2009

Keep Poor article and I wouldn't weep to see it go, but Gpirate achieves adequate notability through mentions on torrentfreak (one of the best WP:RS for this topic) and even the usually glacially moving about.com. If they've noted it, it's established enough even for WP. Half the current article content ought to be pruned though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The article on torrentfreak.com about torrent searches in general Gpirate is mentioned, the article, however the article is not specifically about Gpirate (also notwithstanding WP:OSE, the only other site in the article that has a wikipedia page is YouTorrent). That doesn't counts as significant coverage that can be used to establish notability. As for the About.com references, again another references in passing (giving it special mention in their list of the top 35 torrnet sites, but it didn't actually make their list of top 35)--kelapstick (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep i m a user of Gpirate for like 20days and it is really useful. Not once has i shown any spam or junk message or any form of spyware or porn, as is common in torrent sites, It does not even serve any advertisements. It reminds me of the Google of early 97. But as you mention the article better be pruned Gpirate. Is it possible to nominate that this article needs to be cleaned up.. And number of users of Gpirate search seems to be growing at a rapid pace! I think we are going to see mentions of the search engine sooner than later Wikisudia (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Wikisudia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. _Gb^T/c 19:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral veering to Weak keep if de-spammed and de-peacocked - much more like LinguistAtLarge's version. The SPA enthusiasts are their own worst enemies if they insist on the unencyclopedic promotional tone and undo changes that remove it. Guys, if the article stays, understand that you will not OWN it and will have to allow others to edit it to comply with Wikipedia's normal standards such as neutral point of view. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB, WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. — neuro^(talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (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.