Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheggit (2nd nomination)
- 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 and replace with a redirect to Internet_pornography#Peer-to-peer.--Kubigula (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This torrent site fails WP:WEB straight off the bat. Indeed, despite these concerns being brought up in its first nomination, it was kept on the basis of it having inherited notability from Empornium (despite the fact notability is not inherited), a site which has now been deleted on the basis of *also* being non-notable. This could even be a borderline CSD A7 article, but I've brought it here due to it having been AfD'd before. Delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I would be surprised if it could pass WP:V (I'm not convinced it does now) due to the difficulty in obtaining reliable sources for such topics. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm kinda surprised empornium got deleted. I thought it'd have more sources giving coverage like this Corpx 05:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too really, but only because of the saga discussed in that article. Had that not happened, I definitely don't think that it would've been notable enough; and Cheggit's only claim to fame is through that, really. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just requested a DRV of Empornium - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_26#Empornium_.283rd_nomination.29 Corpx 05:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll wait for the Empornium deletion review. Italiavivi 19:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, sadly the nom is right; Empornium is more notable than Cheggit, and neither are likely to be covered in super duper reliable sources. Next we can delete PureTnA and probably even TargetPoint; because of course, it didnt happen unless a really reliable source has covered it. FWIW, I have added mention of these three sites on Internet_pornography#Peer-to-peer; perhaps we can redirect these obscure sites there so the unverified information can hide under the redirect until someone has time to research it properly. John Vandenberg 07:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article fails to distinguish between product and provider, but think this fails WP:CORP. Internet companies like this come, go, merge and split all the time, but notability/Notoriety still to come. --Gavin Collins 08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then replace with a redirect to Internet_pornography#Peer-to-peer. What's in the article right now is unsourced and strongly appears to be original research by someone who's at least versed of the internal politics of the two sites. That just looks bad.--Chaser - T 18:19, 5 September 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.