Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oink.me.uk

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. Sr 13 03:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oink.me.uk[edit]

Disputed prod. Rationale: "Fails WP:WEB; no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. May qualify for speedy per CSD A7 - unremarkable web content." The article has been cleaned up and expanded, but the sources are all self-published (blog posts and forum posts). --Muchness 11:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB big time. --Evb-wiki 12:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed most of the blog citations and added one or two slightly better ones. I'm looking for a better source than the passing reference in the Wired blog for the "one of the most popular" statement. It's true, but difficult to verify. There is a sort of "don't talk about it" culture for good torrent trackers. I imagine that this is the same problem that the editors of the Demonoid and isoHunt articles faced, both of which were flagged for notability early in the article's writing (in last December and June respectively).--Smtomak 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm afraid I can't do any better with the references than I already have. I spent a over an hour googling and despite hundreds of thousands of hits, there's nothing more reliable than blogs, message boards and that zeropaid.com site. I did a few LexisNexis searches just in case, and of course got no results. I imagine the OiNK phenomenon will see some real press eventually, but it seems not yet. It would be a shame for the article to get canned considering the (paradoxically concurrent) noteriety of OiNK and difficulty of getting info about it, but I don't know if that's enough to meet WP:WEB --Smtomak 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just heard about this site today and I trusted Wikipedia to tell me what the hell is it about. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DeleteWay to spill the beans
Strong Keep I am a member of the site and am constantly asked to be invited, often for financial reward. This is a very desirable website to have access to. A google search gives endless chatrooms full of people begging for a invitation. I know we can't cite chatrooms, but this is a time for that thing we often hate using on wikipedia, common sense. This article needs work and expansion, but it is so notable amongst the web community it deserves a spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalstar (talk • contribs)
Keep - There's lots of other BitTorrent trackers on Wikipedia including other private ones like Demonoid. This happens to be the largest music tracker in the world and has more seeders that the pirate bay and mininova combined. I'd say that's notable and worth a wiki entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.152.53 (talk • contribs)

Comment Demonoid isn't private (weekly open sign-ups), and unless you have a source for your other statement ("more seeders"), then I'm just going to laugh. -Paine 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per WP:WEB and WP:OR, plus I'm not too sure they're happy about even being here ;). -Paine 14:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Also Alternate Previously Deleted, bringing total times previously deleted to 3 (this being the nom for a 4th). I recommend delete and protect both articles from recreation. -Paine 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely don't protect from creating. Re-deleting the page every six months isn't a big deal, if it comes to that. Even if OiNK is deemed not notable today, there's no saying it won't get mentioned by a reputable source in the near future. --Smtomak 06:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - One of the largest/most active music dedicated torrent sites. Perhaps a merger into a larger torrent tracker list, if not keeping this article? --IceflamePhoenix 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable bittorrent web site. The "sources" in the article are garbage. This fails WP:WEB spectacularly. —ptk✰fgs 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not notable private bittorrent tracker. wikipedia does not benefit from this page Supersonic^ 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - At first sight Alexa readings[1] indicate the site is possibly notable enough, but there simply aren't any verifiable secondary sources to confirm. Try Google News[2] - no hits whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a place for original research nor a directory. Therefore, delete according to WP:VERIFY and WP:WEB. If, in the future, the website becomes notable due to coverage in verifiable sources then it can be recreated (see further). --Javit 20:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Fails everything. 70.189.73.114 14:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a member of the site, but I don't believe it's notable enough for an article; the number of active users is relatively small compared with other bittorrent sites. Oink HAS been mentioned in the Guardian[1], although in keeping with the 'secrecy', the site isn't actually named in the article (hence it can't be used as a source, and it's only a fluff piece anyway). smigs 17:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB.
Delete - Fails WP:WEB Indrian 08:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I say delete just because no one on OiNK wants the attention, but I have to laugh at those of you saying this is a non-notable torrent tracker. Whether or not there are solid references does not detract from the fact that OiNK is THE most notable private music tracker. Period. Perhaps stick to a topic you are familiar with or at least mention WP:WEB and spare the bias.65.122.125.226 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. For what it's worth, I have my doubts about this being bigger than The Pirate Bay as claimed--for one thing, TPB has an Alexa rank more than ten times better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it's larger in terms of number of torrents and number of seeds, not number of visits. Smtomak 01:01, 12 June 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.