Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torrentmind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. User test, blanked. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Torrentmind
Copyvioforumvertisement. 74 unique google hits, most of which look like links to specific files therein from similar forums. —Korath (Talk) 03:30, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't find one link that linked to a file inside of torrentmind. Torrentmind is only a forum, nothing else. If you are going to delete this, you might as well delete filesoup as well. It's only a forum. What could be changed in order to avoid deletion?
- Comment -- Burgerpardis, why did you copy images from that web sites navigation bar and paste them directly into the article's body text? Zzyzx11 05:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, First of all there is no direct link to the actual site. Second, where do we draw the line of what websites we should cover? Obviously their notability (or lack thereof) counts. How large should a community be before they deserve honorable mention? Inter 12:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Good question, actually. Let's see... websites (or forums) for bands, games, stores etc do not deserve a separate article, but should be listed under the article for that band, game, store, etc (and of course only if said b/g/s/etc deserves an article in the first place). Pure web services are only notable if known to the world outside the internet (e.g. eBay, Amazon, Google). The same would apply to pure chat or talk forums/boards (and they generally aren't known to anyone except their members). Even if a website is notable, a list of members or admins is not. This is of course IMHO. Radiant! 12:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- And that means that Torrentmind should be deleted and that a link to the forum could be added to the main Bittorrent article if said forum is indeed notable among BT'ers. Radiant! 12:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I would support moving this and the Filesoup article under the bittorrent article. I could edit the bittorrent one to include some community forums for Bittorrent technical help, which is what these sites really are about. Burgerpardis
- That sounds fair. Radiant! 21:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Good question, actually. Let's see... websites (or forums) for bands, games, stores etc do not deserve a separate article, but should be listed under the article for that band, game, store, etc (and of course only if said b/g/s/etc deserves an article in the first place). Pure web services are only notable if known to the world outside the internet (e.g. eBay, Amazon, Google). The same would apply to pure chat or talk forums/boards (and they generally aren't known to anyone except their members). Even if a website is notable, a list of members or admins is not. This is of course IMHO. Radiant! 12:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
