Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonoid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demonoid

Demonoid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Demonoid is (was) one of countless Torrent trackers on the web. There is nothing in this article to establish notability, and the article content mostly chronicles the site being shut down. No third-party sources for the article are given. -- Atamachat 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Instinct says keep, as it was an extremely well known bittorrent site (2.4 million results) but policy (WP:WEB: "includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine...") seems to suggest it needs references from a different medium to the Internet, which I can't find. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep "No third-party sources for the article are given" is not a reason for deletion. In this case, third-party sources can be given. I will add some. –Pomte 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment It is definitely a reason for deletion. If you look at WP:WEB, it states that the site should have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Every reference on the page so far has been to Demonoid itself, except for the "Ross & Bride" link which doesn't even mention Demonoid anywhere on the page. The lack of references isn't the only problem with this article however, the content of the article itself is a problem. Again from WP:WEB:
Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.
What achievement has Demonoid had other than being shut down? What impact has it had, or historical significance? So far there's not much to this article aside from general info about Demonoid itself, and makes no assertion as to why Demonoid should be included as an article on Wikipedia. -- Atamachat 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A site can be the subject of reliable sources and yet its article can be devoid of them. We don't delete articles just because they have no sources, but because there are convincingly no sources. I said I would add some, so your questions were premature. –Pomte 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to be snippy, my questions were not regarding the reliability of sources but the establishment of notability within the article itself. I was explaining my nomination of deletion for this article, which has been under attack on this page. -- Atamachat 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No one's attacking your legitimate nomination. Here I contested your claim that "It is definitely a reason for deletion." I'm clearly not talking about the reliability of sources either, but the existence of them. When I said "I will add some", that should suggest that these new sources will be part of the attempt to establish notability, by definition. –Pomte 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I second the tracker's notability and ease of finding eclectic files and music. Although Demonoid hasn't had as many run-ins with the law as The Pirate Bay to make it more famous, it still deserves an article here. True, it wasn't well covered in other medias, but that doesn't make the site any less notable. Arc88 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other than former popularity, the site does not seem particularly notable.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought notability couldn't expire?
As I said, I don't see how it is notable. Not before it's closure and not after. If there ARE reasons the former webite is notable, it should be more apparent in the article page.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
"Notability can't expire"... That's false. Notability is not temporary. That means that for something to be considered notable at all, it needs to stay notable. For example, if some guy makes national headlines for surviving a 500 foot fall, and it all over the news for a week, and is then never spoken of again, he isn't considered notable. The link you give proves the opposite of what you're trying to say. -- Atamachat 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If the guy was notable back then, then he is notable now. But in your case he wasn't. Staying notable is a misnomer. –Pomte 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable due to large user base, other websites are kept due to large user base. Large user base denotes notability. Third party sources and citations should be added.Pookakitty (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It has featured in a few articles [1] [2] [3] and [4] (the last one isn't all that great I admit). --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd say it is definitely notable, and after making an effort I do see sources discussing it. Gwynand (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Demonoid has been one of the larger points of controversy among bit torrent, and has been under frequent attack by various copyright lobbies. If you believe that the whole 'suing bittorent sites' thing is not notable, then so be it, but if not this site has great notability. Further, it is a very large with a large userbase, and has been mentioned in articles. Wangfoo (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wangfoo and Arc88. Disclosure: I am a registered Demonoid User.--Greenguy1090 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepAnyone who spent anytime on Yahoo! Answers will know how tedious it was having a million questions a day asking if anyone has a spare Demonoid invites. This, in itself, suggests to me that it was an incredible well sought after site. GillsMan (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Demonoid was not just any old torrent tracker, but one of the best and most comprehensive, run with a unique vision and a highly individual membership policy. The proposer for deletion simply seems ignorant of this, but ignorance does not imply a lack of notability. As has been said above, Demonoid's legal troubles drew a great deal of attention.JulieRudiani (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only are nearly thirty references given, but some of them predate the deletion proposal which leads me to wonder why the proposer said there were none.JulieRudiani (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the references were all to Demonoid's own web site, they weren't third-party references which is what Wikipedia requires for verifiability. The only reference prior to the AfD that didn't point to Demonoid itself was to a web site that didn't even mention Demonoid, it was about file sharing sites in general. -- Atamachat 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the second time you've ignored the citation to TorrentFreak.com. You could argue that it's not reliable, but it's clearly third-party. –Pomte 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm ignoring it because it's a blog. Blogs are rarely considered to be viable sources of information on Wikipedia, see WP:V for details. -- Atamachat 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, and you could have said that at the beginning to avoid this exchange. –Pomte 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not what the source says. –Pomte 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ?? Yes it does... --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Honorable Mention: Demonoid For being one of the most visited BitTorrent sites until they pulled the plug in November.

"one of the most visited" does not mean the most used. –Pomte 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that being slightly pedantic, they have made their point. --Sin Harvest (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It'd be a much stronger claim to notability if Demonoid was used more than The Pirate Bay. People who don't click links might take their word for it. –Pomte 07:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is exactly the sort of quick-summary-of-hard-to-find-information article that is exclusively available on wikipedia and needs to remain there. Four out of every five torrents you download these days cites Demonoid.com as the original tracker and download source. I looked demonoid up just now out of curiosity and knew that i could find it on wikipedia but probably nowhere else. This is why wikipedia exists, don't remove this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.207.240 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It may be "one of countless" trackers, but it also happens to have been one of the largest ones of the time, and one of the only major ones that had any kind of community to it. Even if it never reopens it is completely notable. Lethesl 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Having seen the large userbase both before the shutdown and currently on the forums, the Alexa rating, and the sources listed above, I believe the article should stay. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Demonoid was one of the most highly regarded private trackers in the torrent community, and as such has earned notoriety for its accomplishments. Furthermore, it is rumored to be making a return once certain personal issues have been dealt with by the site owner. Anyone who would consider deleting demonoid must have never used its services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.194.199 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Demonoid was a public tracker, they kept repeating that all over the forums. Arc88 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The nature of a phenomenon it is irrelevant, what matters is its notability. Demonoid was very notable, and the article is well written and referenced. I have never understood the urge to delete information for what seems like purely and misguided legalistic purposes. Usefulness is for user or posterity to determine. Miqademus (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (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.