Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TorrentFreak.com
- 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 NO CONSENSUS. Though Ceyokey's merge doesn't sound like a bad idea. -Splash - tk 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TorrentFreak.com[edit]
- TorrentFreak.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Web site of questionable notability. Of sources cited, only one is "reliable" - remainder of third-party sources are all blogs. Previously speedy-deleted under A7, and recreated by original author. The history has been restored for your perusal. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Version at time of AFD nomination: permalink --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pagerank is 6/10 which is unusually high for this type of site so it might be important enough to warrant an article. WP:RS are required though. Exxolon 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how blogs don't make reliable sources. They're only unreliable if you prove them to be providing false information, in which case you'd want that blog not to be used as a source. I do understand that a lot of blogs are unreliable, but to state that all blogs are unreliable as sources is absurd. I was told that it was deleted because the article didn't prove it's significance. A pagerank of 6/10, a top 50 dugg site, and multiple interviews with the creator regarding the blog should be sufficient to call it significant. I don't understand how it's sources are any less reliable than the majority of the articles on Wikipedia. Just because it comes from a blog does NOT mean that it's unreliable, and to assert so is ridiculous. Richiemcintosh 23:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Anyone with some change in their pocket can publish a blog online. Generally, blogs do not have the same editorial screening of traditional media, hence they are rarely considered a reliable source. --Madchester 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, however, I think an interview transcript posted on a blog is just as reliable as anything you'll find. I was only referencing the interview text on a single post, not the blog itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.159.112 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Anyone with some change in their pocket can publish a blog online. Generally, blogs do not have the same editorial screening of traditional media, hence they are rarely considered a reliable source. --Madchester 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how blogs don't make reliable sources. They're only unreliable if you prove them to be providing false information, in which case you'd want that blog not to be used as a source. I do understand that a lot of blogs are unreliable, but to state that all blogs are unreliable as sources is absurd. I was told that it was deleted because the article didn't prove it's significance. A pagerank of 6/10, a top 50 dugg site, and multiple interviews with the creator regarding the blog should be sufficient to call it significant. I don't understand how it's sources are any less reliable than the majority of the articles on Wikipedia. Just because it comes from a blog does NOT mean that it's unreliable, and to assert so is ridiculous. Richiemcintosh 23:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This blog broke the news that Comcast was throttling BitTorrent traffic, a story that was later picked up by the Associated Press (major international wire service) after further testing. It is frequently Dugg and is a reasonably reliable, if biased, source on file sharing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.182.80 (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there are two non-blog sources in the references.... Richiemcintosh 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep seems rather notable, but unsure. Doc Strange 07:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google news TorrentFreak is also indexed by Google news, so it has at least some credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.106.221 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Is every torrent site notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. TorrentFreak is a news blog, not a regular BitTorrent site.
- Delete. nn-blog, fails WP:WEB. --Madchester (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep TorrentFreak is very notable... Richiemcintosh (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge→BitTorrent TorrentFreak's reason for existence is BitTorrent; an attempt to merge should be made. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (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.