Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FitGirl

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 keep. Bordering on no consensus, depending on how you look at it, but certainly there's no consensus to delete. Most people think that there are (if perhaps barely) sufficient sources for an article, even if not necessarily a biography. Sandstein 06:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

FitGirl

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

FitGirl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a person who pirates computer games and posts them online. The article is nothing more than a sentence, and the sources are questionable at best. It does not appear the subject meets our notability guidelines for inclusion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• I felt like given the sources - which are considered reliable per WP:RSP - the person was marginally notable. The article is indeed pretty short, unfortunately, but I do think enough has been written about them that they merit inclusion. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but a reader coming to a one-fact article is likely to react "Er … So what?". This is a biography that can never be a biography, of someone whose life is undocumented, whose name is not known, and whose works are barely documented. Surely there's some other way that this fact can be presented, not as a biography? We shouldn't try to shoehorn absolutely everything into the form of a biography. What is the context for this single fact? Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Uncle G: This doesn't really look like a biography to me. If kept, I'd suggest moving to FitGirl Repacks, the name of the site/repack project. I'd like to note I've heard of this before. It seems quite well known. I'll have to check the sources, but I lean towards keep. (edit: I checked the sources, I say keep) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I found the This Latvian biographical article is a stub notice at the bottom to be a strong indicator, as well as the first sentence of the article. ☺ If we can make an article about the WWW site, or some other context that isn't a biography of a person (a sub-topic of video game piracy perhaps, as that is how one current source is apparently addressing it), that has scope for expansion and isn't a permanent-stub, that's a different matter. But it hasn't been shown what that is or that that's possible, yet. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
        • @Uncle G: I had missed that, I changed that to {{Videogame-website-stub}}. (if there is a better stub category feel free to change it again, I couldn't find a software piracy stub template) Even if a subject would be a stub forever, I don't agree that would be a reason for deletion if the subject is notable. Not every subject requires a lengthy article. Slywriter If I'm not mistaken, FitGirl Repacks is not considered to be part of "the scene". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy from day 1 we have never kept things that can never expand into articles. Later rewrites such Special:Permalink/1674677#What to keep, what to delete, for one example, made this clearer, but this has always been policy, from the days of Larry Sanger onwards. There are ways to rename and refactor, but we do not keep a permanent-stub biography that can never become a biography. Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Do not delete anything that might in the future become an encyclopedia topic. is also listed at the first link. It's a balance and only citing half of it is a bit misleading. Not to other stuff exists, but we have tens of thousands (if not millions) of perma-bio-stubs kept based off of SNGs. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge Keep ( no suitable merge target)somewhere into the warez scene family of articles. Though all warez related articles really need cleanup as they haven't been touched in 5 or 6 years. Slywriter (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • • Alexis Jazz, Having gotten lost in the en-wiki articles for several hours after writing that, I would agree that she would be outside the scene and changing vote accordingly. Slywriter (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Torrent Freak and Kotaku aren't reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oaktree b, TorrentFreak is reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per Alexis Jazz. Could do with a few new sources but definitely seems notable. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Inadequately sourced BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: It already wasn't a BLP anymore when you voted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There have been 4 !votes and you have commented 5 times already. You might be bludgeoning just a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Nope, clearly not. Just correcting misunderstandings. If you hadn't called an article that isn't a BLP a BLP there would have been no need to correct you. Bludgeoning isn't measured merely by quantity, one has to be repeating themselves, which I am not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because I wouldn't know what WP:bludgeon is about. Shoo. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The Kotaku source a. only talks about FitGirl for a few paragraphs, b. is an interview, and c. explicitly says it contacted many uploaders and spoke only to the ones that responded (ie, it's an article about torrent uploaders in general, not about FitGirl in particular). This is not significant coverage. Lowercaserho (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Two reliable sources seems strong enough to establish notability. Melmann 11:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Article fails to establish notability. You cannot possibly write a good and comprehensive article with only two citations, and even those are on shaky ground regarding them being in-depth and independent. Namcokid47 18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The second TorrentFreak source constitutes significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm confused. Is this an article about a person or a project? Both of the sources are clearly speaking about FitGirl as being a pseudonym for person who compresses and uploads video games; people in this discussion are referring to 'FitGirl Repacks' as a project - is it a group of people (in which case WP:NCORP would presumably apply)? Or is it just the website which is notable (WP:NWEB). I'd like to understand what it is I'm assessing before offering a vote. I'll also note that I'm quite concerned that we seem to have a link to the website in the article: FitGirl may operate in a pirate ecosystem where copyright laws are ignored, but Wikipedia does not. Links to websites publishing copyright violations are prohibited by our copyright policy (see also WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO). GirthSummit _(blether) 08:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Girth Summit: from what I can tell, links to copyright-violating websites are acceptable when discussing such websites. For example, see Library Genesis, Sci-Hub, The Pirate Bay, etc. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Elli, do you have a policy link for that view? I'm not aware of any such exception, but it's possible that I'm mistaken. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @Girth Summit: there isn't a particular policy documenting this, but I think the clear intent of WP:COPYLINK is to prevent linking to pirated versions of works - which indeed is contributory infringement. WP:NOTCENSORED, however, means that we can include these details about piracy sites themselves. Also, linking to the homepage is different from linking to a particular pirated work on the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Elli, well I confess that copyvio isn't my specialism - I'll consult with some of me learnèd colleagues and see what the policy position is, maybe you're right that a homepage is OK if there aren't any violations there. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Striking copyvio concerns. A closer reading of WP:LINKVIO revealed the sentence In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It makes more sense to think of FitGirl as a project "FitGirl repacks". FitGirl is a pseudonym of a person (or group of people) who maintains a website called "FitGirl Repacks". In this context, the pseudonym and the project are the same thing, since the pseudonym is not used for any other purpose. Even when FitGirl pseudonym appears on other sites, it always denotes the official communication from the "FitGirl repacks" project. I'm not sure whether Wikipedia allows link to official (piracy) website in this context. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I see more relevant reliable sources online. However, I don't want to post them to Wikipedia before I read Wikipedia's policies on piracy and links to piracy resources. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'm also confused as the editors here say it is a biography but the article states this is a company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's confusing. Perhaps we should rename the article "FitGirl Repacks". It looks like that term is already used in the lead sentence, infobox, and logo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Where does article say anything about a company? I searched the source for word "company" as well, but did not find anything. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Multiple reliable sources including TorrentFreak and Kotaku support that the subject meets WP:GNG. We may disapprove of the subject matter, but notability certainly seems satisfied to me. Also, on the subject of the length of the article, given the subject of the article is likely violating quite a few laws, it is perhaps not that surprising that we don't have a ton of details about her personally. But the coverage is robust enough that it certainly seems appropriate to have an article about her. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Definitely notable, while there's only three sources currently on the article, they're relatively in-depth and explain the subject well. And from a quick Google search, the site comes up on many 'best torrent sites' lists from TorrentFreak, which could possibly be incorporated. Waxworker (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

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.