Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro's BTMusic Tracker

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro's BTMusic Tracker, Pedro's BTMusic Only Tracker

Nominating this site for promotion/advertising/soapboxing. The Pedro's BTMusic Tracker article was created first then BitTorrent websites listing a link to this article. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is currently an edit war going on over this article, with POV pushing and vandalsim competing. Check the article before voting, as it in a state of flux.

Delete as nominator -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't call it promotion/adversiting. See http://friedenwatch.blogspot.com (comment unsigned by Flacinhell signed by SusanLarson)

Comment yeah, flacinhell is no fan of pedro's (comment unsigned by 154.5.31.38 signed by SusanLarson)

Delete Not much to verify here, and the creation of articles this can be spammed onto isn't helping. Rx StrangeLove 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. Only 21 unique Google hits for "BTMusic Tracker", one of which is their website. Madman 02:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essexmutant 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparently insignificant, article as written is vanispamcruftisement. Adding the article since this AfD is for a redirect. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, do you think this site wants to advertise? What I can see has been written is very NPOV. I do not think this article would lead those who are sane to join up to that website - if indeed it lasts much longer.

Above point has merit to this extent: this is apparently an illegal file-sharing site. As such it could get shut down any time. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Restored AfD tag removed by El Cazangero (talk · contribs) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your right to mark it for deletion and haven't removed the tag myself. But please explain why you don't want this? It is the true facts, and like all sources of knowledge will hopefully teach a lesson to some in the future.

Speedy Delete because it is a blatant attack page. -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Flacinhell 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) So first it gets nominated as a "promotion/advertising/soapboxing" and now it's an "attack page". Please could you make up your minds.[reply]

It's an attack page that is promoting/advertising/soapboxing a grudge. -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's neither an attack page nor advertising, the text is NPOV and informative. Communities built around trackers are an interesting topic, which shouldn't be missing here. --El Cazangero 20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Flacinhell (talk · contribs) and El Cazangero (talk · contribs) are the two main parties in the edit war. Whether or not tracker communities should be covered in WP is, of course, irrelevant to whether this particular tracker community should be. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not a party in any edit war, I'm an author and I contributed major parts of the article, so I didn't want to see them defaced by random vandals. This particular website is worth writing about, because it is uniqe with regard to lossless content and music beyond mainstream stuff. If magazines like Rolling Stone are allowed to have a presentation, then why shouldn't the tracker? It is definitely a virtual music magazine.--El Cazangero 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango. But I note that things are calming down a bit now, which is good. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 13:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if evidence can be provided Surely if it says 'consisting of approximately 5,000 members' it would comply with WP:WEB? If evidence could be shown that it had 5000 or more members, it should be kept. Compu ter Jo e 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: Just visit the site and look at the bottom of the start page, where it says: Total Registered Users: 5,772. The user approximation is just a rough estimate, because there are probably several people with multiple accounts. --El Cazangero 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't tell us how many are currently active. There have been, since records began, many thousands of British MPs; only 625 are currently active. And is not a particularly reliable source, since it might be inflated. So, let's have some real evidence of notability or importance, shall we? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'd never accept a "proof" anyway, because it looks like you were firmly determined to remove it at any cost. What would be an acceptable proof for you? There are many other articles about less interesting websites, I don't see what you gain by campaigning against it. By deleting it we'd only lose interesting information. --El Cazangero 00:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. After all, if I were "determined" to delete it, I'm sure you'd be able to cite at least one credible reason why I should give a toss about it; I can't think of one offhand. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 13:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Importance/relevancy of this article is totally obscured by the author's personal vendetta against these people. Distasteful and disrespectful motives reveal themselves when you scratch the face "value" of the article. HappyHunter 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flacinhells vendetta is one sentence of the entire article, and it's quite irrelevant for the whole picture. --El Cazangero 00:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This is a fascinating combination of an attack page and pure advertising, but since neither of those things should be here, I don't see why their offspring should be here either. Also note that I don't think the site wants any publicity at all; what private torrent tracker does? --Aaron 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before requesting delete let me just confirm this: My blog (and hence this article/site has finally started to get newsworthy, people from media organisations are in touch - stay tuned, I will be posting links to news stories/interviews as and when they appear Unfortunately I think this could mean for a short time this page could be prone to more vandalism, so please keep your eyes peeled --Flacinhell 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn website. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable advert for a non notable website. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just don't see it ever becoming big on the scale of Suprnova or The Pirate Bay, which realisticly is the sort of numbers needed to really make a site notable and an article on it useful to people. --maru (talk) Contribs 06:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jtkiefer, JzG, et al. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a matter of the site's notability. The article is just...useless. — 83.227.238.221 23:57, 14 January 2006 (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.