Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empornium (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Waltontalk 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empornium

edit
AfDs for this article:
Empornium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not notable does not meet WP:WEB lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 12:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

  • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:
    • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5]
    • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

No References to "ANY" works reliable or unreliable...!


2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]

No References to any awards 3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for:

  • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

Content is probably OK ...

lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 12:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      1. Mininova - 143
      2. TorrentSpy - 211
      3. The Pirate Bay - 292
      4. isoHunt - 306
      5. Demonoid - 397
      6. Empornium - 1536 lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 10:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that the current alexa ratings are not indicative of its peek popularity, and even then that is only within the userbase of Alexa, which is often not geeks or friends of geeks. i.e. Alexa is not a good sample of the people who do the majority of the torrenting around the world. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Popularity is not a criteria, Notability backed up with independent references is, however popularity is a good indication of if it is worth searching for references or not? and you claimed "..This is one of the most heavily traffic Torrent sites on the web.." it does not appear that that is the case from a quick check, if however you have a reference to back this up.... lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Only one of the links above is to anything more than a blog or a forum, the scholar link, and it only mentions the topic in passing. Not seeing any real quality sources. MrZaiustalk 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    fwiw, this is the text of the scholar result (google scholar shows two results but they are almost the same paper). John Vandenberg 19:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The actual refrence is "..some BitTorrent communities, including easytree, empornium.us, and pwtorrents.net,periodically enforce that the sharing ratios of participating members are above a minimum value..." and that's it in an 18 page article. They do not seem to have picked particularly popular or well known sites (EasyTree appears to have died)? lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 10:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The academic paper doesnt need to mention the website's name continually for it to be relevant. If you read that page in full, you will see is actually categorising different torrent communities, and that mention you refer to puts this website into one category. The paper then discusses the broader topics in more detail. The point is that even an academic has considered it worthy of note and analysis. This site is no longer run the same way that it was at the time of the study, but notability isnt suddenly lost as a result. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The paper takes as examples 6 sites bt.etree.org, piratebay.org, torrentportal.com, easytree.org, btefnet.net and alluvion.org and compares and contrasts them - note these were not picked because they were notable or popular, just because they were a typical cross section (Three of these site are listed in the article as having less than 600 torrents, so they seem to have been picked as small closed community sites as opposed to the larger open sites like ThePirateBay), Empornium was mentioned once, in passing, as an example of a site that does Sharing-ratio enforcement, again not because it is notable or popular but just as a random example. lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These clearly do not count per WP:WEB guidelines. DreamGuy 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I am not trying to make those sources "count" per a guideline; I did some fact finding here so others could click the links and read those articles to quickly get an idea of the impact and controversy around this website. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These references all refer to TargetPoint and make it notable, the controversy all seems to be over the takeover by Targetpoint and does not refer to the impact of Empornium? Is there something that makes Empornium notable besides this? lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Jmax- was indicating that bringing "advert" into this discussion is a bit rich. An article on Wikipedia is always an advert. As there has been over 200 edits to the article, and two Afds, it is hard to swallow that all those people have all been in the advertising game. I agree with you that the notability of this website isnt being demonstrated on the article, and it may even be weak at best simply because it reliable sources generally jump at the chance to talk about the sucesses of porn torrent sites; it doesnt sell newspapers and its a touchy subject that can potentially cause circulation numbers to drop. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Advert' reference is irrelevant but notability is not, It survived the previous Afds because most of the discussion was about the content of the site (and Alexa rankings were used to support it being notable?) I don't have a problem with the content WP:CENSORED just if it is notable by WP:WEB lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the previous Afd comments were along the line of "'Keep', no wikipedia policy being violated." That hasnt changed. OTOH, guidelines have come and gone over the two year history of this article. John Vandenberg 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Policy of WP:VERIFY has not changed in the last two years as far as I know? There were a few comments on the non-notability of the site but these were drowned out on the first afds by the "keep it's popular" and "don't delete it because it's porn" advocates, there were a few keeps that it did not break any Wikipedia policy but the most cited was WP:NN which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" ... but there is still no references on the article showing it is notable or even popular? Get some evidence it is notable and I'll be happy to change my mind. I know quoting policy is a no-no but ... From WP:VERIFY "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." and WP:WEB "...should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep* At first I was thinking delete, but if it's been nominated this many times and such a large number of people know about it, then it's just a matter of time before you get a lot of people who want to find out a little more about the site. --Nyxxxx 03:56, 5 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empornium_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137827660"