Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projectw

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. --Ixfd64 01:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Projectw

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Projectw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Marked as a speedy, which was then disputed. I'm not sure, they get a reasonable number of google hits but then again that number will be hugely inflated for these kinds of sites. No vote. --fvw* 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes thats true but they do boast a membership of over 300,000 registered members in just about 2 years. I believe that is a large enough pool of people to permit us to make a wiki about it. It is one of the largest players in the warez scene and i have seen much smaller boards have a wiki. -Zabzu

• That assumes that they aren't lying. Or creating thousands of fake accounts, which is the same thing, really. Either way, every single source I found on google was either a primary source, a blog, a personal website, or just using their email addresses to recognize contributions. Fails WP:NOTE because of lack of multiple reliable secondary sources, thus delete. -Amarkov ^babble 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

hold on, can i have the admins of the site come and talk to give a reliable second source and prove he validity of all 300,000 members

here are the service stats of the board alone

Server Load: 2342 pages served in previous 5 minutes. Page generation time: 0.25508 seconds - SQL queries: 18

Our users have posted a total of 2347368 articles We have 300415 registered users The newest registered user is avrillirva In total there are 435 users online :: 354 Registered, 35 Hidden and 46 Guests [ Administrators ] [ Moderators ] [ VIP ] [ Donator ] Most users ever online was 1116 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 16:14

are you serious why to delete this page ?? ProjectW is the best !!!!!!

^ Yes, ProjectW is the shiz!

• Weak delete Though the article does seem to fail the criterias of WP:WEB, an Alexa ranking of 2,047 is quite impressive. --TBCΦtalk? 02:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • exactly, just give it a chance. The majority of the sites members are european and its the middle of the night there. Give it 12 hours so they can see the wiki and respond accordingly.

-- note that the above unsigned comment was left by user Zabzu --

• Delete per nomination. I don't hold an Alexa ranking, especially in this context, above WP:WEB. This article is non-encyclopedic, doesn't cite sources, and reads more like a poorly written review verging on masturbatory spam -- wtfunkymonkey 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing special here; any forum that requires that users register to even view the forums is bound to have a high membership count, but that's definitely not a useful number for active posters. --humblefool® 03:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that this page has been linked to, with instructions on how to post to it, on their forums. I left them a note discouraging that. --humblefool® 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ProjectW gains over 500 new members a day. It has 2347603 articles. I have seen much smaller sites have wikis and i think you should give our a chance, the site can only grow. We have members from almost every single country in the world. As soon as the Admins get on i can access the tracker info to show you how large and well represented projectw is.

You're entirely missing the point. You must have reliable secondary sources to get an article. We don't keep articles because their subject is big, without reliable secondary sources. -Amarkov ^babble 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources to back up the content? Warez boards are usually not officially listed as warez but i can prove that it is one of the 20 largest phpbb boards.

omg! all this discussion... ok, but to come to the point.. can we have the article or not?

here is a source, on of the 20 largest warez board, in fact projectw would be number 9 http://rankings.big-boards.com/?filter=phpBB,all&sort=members they refuse to lost Warez boards and other adult content but in fact if you sort by members ou will find projectw fits into 9th place

• OK. 9th largest warez board. We'll assume it's true.

1. Is projectw notable for that reason alone? 9th isn't all that impressive.
2. If not, is projectw more notable than any other big warez board? If so, why?

If you can't answer these questions, the article will likely be deleted. humblefool® 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

More important is this:

1. Are there reliable secondary sources on which to base the content?

If there aren't, the article will almost definitely be deleted. -Amarkov ^babble 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

i still do not understand what you mean by secondary sources. IS big-baords not a secondary source?

And no projectw is also notable for the fact that It is the largest warez forum on the internet. When people download warez they have two choices, a bittorrent client or a forum and the number one forum is Us.

Also ProjectW beats the other warez competition in the fact that we have almost double the members of our two competitors and we are affiliated wiht other large warez sites such as katz.ws

• Now wait. Are you the largest warez site, or 9th largest? You've claimed both. Also, Bigboard's rankings are based on self-reporting by the sites, which is unreliable at best. Has the site been mentioned in the media at all? Size *alone* isn't a reason to have a Wikipedia article. --humblefool® 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We are the Largest Warez Board and the 9th Largest phpbb board. That clear? Also this is the most reliable way to track the size of these boards.

It. Does. Not. Matter. You. Need. Reliable. Secondary. Sources. NOTHING which mechanically gathers info is a secondary source, nor is something that just blindly uses what's been reported by the primary source. Please, read WP:NOTE and WP:V. For that matter, you really should just read all the policies and guidelines. -Amarkov ^babble 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete fails WP:WEB. Kavadi carrier 06:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blindingly obvious web forum vanity. Please discount all puppets. JIP | Talk 12:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no independent sources cited means it does not pass WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 14:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - This is one of those cases where lots of g-hits does not imply notability. Any site devoted to the Warez scene has the potential to be drastically over rated by the google test as a result of top100 lists, leech sites, mirrors, and content hosting sites. In very rare cases (such as the Pirate Bay) outside media attention makes a pirating site notable. In this case, the article reads like a teaser for the forum, and I honestly don't see how a well formatted NPOV article could say anything beyond "ProjectW is a warez community with a good number of members". -bobby 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very Very Very Very Strongest and hardest delete Nothing else to say. Just delete. --SkyWalker 16:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely no reliable sources present to verify anything. If we remove everything that is unsourced or unimportant, this is what we are left with:

ProjectW is a 300,000 member strong warez community. It's currently in the top-20 largest phpBB boards on the web --Wafulz 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it and protect the page - Warezcruft! Just what we needed. Fails WP:V, WP:WEB, and WP:RS. Trifecta. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the thing delete - I don't see anyone saying that the group is not being used by the number suggested. As such it is notable whatever anyone thinks about it. The article is very badly written but that is no excuse to delete it - if people don't like the article then well and good tell the writers to improve it or make it a stub - an AfD is a decision on the name in the Wikipedia space not about the contents of the article. If the contents are bad, but the name is encylopedic then the proper action is to ask for it to be improved not to delete --Mike 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is not the obligation of those in an AfD debate to prove something is not notable. It is the obligation of those seeking to keep an article to show multiple independent mainstream coverage of it. Claims of how many members there are from the website itself are not verifiable or independent. I found no mention of "Projectw" in a database of 4,000 publications, but I did find numerous articles about the persons operating such sites getting convictions for software privacy. Warez is notable, this one site is not so far. Edison 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

When the article makes a claim, I'm afraid the onus is on those deleting to make the case that it is a false claim (or that having requested proper citation to verify no verificaton has been produced). However, based on your own evidence of a lack in 4000 publciations, I satisfied there is clear evidence of non-notability - thanks! --Mike 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Because of WP:V, not to mention WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV ~ BigrTex 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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.