Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gintor

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 of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gintor

Article about a closed-down non-notable Warze website/community. Netsnipe 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom. Seems to be an attempt to re-ignite an inter-board conflict from four years ago. Tevildo 12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article is a historical record of the most prolific and well known warez site of its time period, and was only created due to requests. There are no grounds for deletion as it does not breach any copywrights nor does it encourage or facilitate illegal activities. The board from 4 years ago of which Tevildo speaks no longer exists, infact hostilities were halted and the two communities remained friends after the conflict. --N0 m3RcY 12:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Evidence that it passes WP:WEB is still required. Along with some major copy-editing for spelling and grammar. Tevildo 12:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• To this day gintor.com is remembered as one of the most notable warez sites in the history of the internet, yet at the same time was known only to people who seeked it. - just about says it all, really. If it was only known by people who "seeked" it, then presumably no verification of its status as "one of the most notable" can't be, erm, "seeked". No verification, no notability. No notability, no Wiki. Delete. Seb Patrick 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that is to say it was known amongst people who used warez sites, similarly a website about birdwatching however prolific, would generally have its userbase limited to birdwatchers.

The statement yet at the same time was known only to people who seeked it is simply a play on words referencing the quote on the main page. Furthermore there are references to Gintor all over the web, more notably to its file format which is referenced on several File Extension databases. If it is deemed not to be worthy of a wiki entry then thats just my opinion vs wiki's and there is nothing i can do or say about that. As for spelling and grammar this will be corrected shortly. --N0 m3RcY 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn, original research. Notability neither stated nor implied. I appreciate the article is important to you; this needs to be established in the article itself for other readers. Tychocat 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it seems as if it was very notable to the people involved but not to the public in general. Recury 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Gintor had many millions of hits and achieved cult status amongst certain circles. It was notable to people who downloaded pirated material... and today people who illegaly download software/media ARE the general public. The question is not whether Gintor is worthy of note but if the history of internet piracy is worthy of note. Believe it or not we, as internet users have a lot to thank internet piracy for. This page was created as a subentry of the warez wiki page. If you know nothing about warez in the given time period then i shouldn't think you would have heard of Gintor, however i assure you many others have. Also please note this is a work in progress. --N0 m3RcY 13:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC).
  • You will need to show some published references to establish notability. That is what I mean when I say the public in general; the New York Times isn't doing stories on you. A few news stories about it on major news websites might suffice, but not forum posts and probably not specialized warez news sites, if such a thing exists. Recury 14:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Your vote doesn't count since it'd be a conflict of interest. Only Wikipedia administrators can vote and you you still haven't demonstrated to them that Gintor passes the WP:WEB test. -- Netsnipe 13:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Another Comment. 1. None of us are _voting_. AfDs are not decided by majority opinion. 2. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion here. An admin will close the discussion when a consensus is reached, but admins have no special priveleges on AfD. Just to clarify any mistaken impressions that Netsnipe's post may have given. Tevildo 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

*nod* I stand corrected. -- Netsnipe 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article is not about Gintor.com as much as it is about warez history, and therefore internet history. Considering how high profile software piracy has become, i believe that alone makes Gintor notable enough for a wiki entry. If you doubt its poularity, search for gintor on google and you will find many thousands of forum posts around the internet referencing gintor.com. Furthermore gintor established its own recognised file format which is veryfied upon following the link referenced in the article. If someone could suggest how i could improve the article instead of simply pointing out faults then im sure we can resolve this. Again, please note this is a work in progress that went up just over an hour ago, i am not trying to spam wiki, nor is the article offensive, so please if you think the article can be improved to better meet the wiki guidelines then suggest away --N0 m3RcY 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Actually, this article is about Gintor.com, so Gintor.com has to be notable enough to be verifiable. The only claim to notability I see here, the file format, links to a page with exactly no information about said format. Maybe this could be mentioned in some article about warez or warez groups but there's nothing here to show it merits its own article. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the article Isn't about Gintor.com, because i wrote it, and i'm telling you that it isn't.... Gintor was an entity which existed across the website, file format, hub and forums (which as mentioned were seperate). Again, if you have no objection to the subject matter itself you could just as easily suggest how to improve the article as criticise it (if you feel strongly enough about the article to comment). Since this is my first ever wiki article you could show the common courtesy of helping me improve it instead of calling for its deletion before i have even hada chance to work on it. If you are upset that not enough information is given on filext.com then you could direct your grievances at them. --N0 m3RcY 14:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN, vanity, and partial attack (albeit only one small section for the latter). --DarkAudit 14:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• /\ partial attack was not meant as such, but has been fixed. As for vanity, i was simply trying to demonstrate the notability of Ginter within the article, as i was instructed to further up in this discussion. It would help me if people could point out specifically how to improve the article so that it falls in line with the guidelines, as i am a new user i can read the guidelines but dont know to what degree they are enforced... e.g. 'how notable'. I have provided references to gintor from around the web, should i include 'more' references? Because they exist, i simply have not included them because i did not feel they added anything to the article. I am getting the feeling that i am being picked up on technicalities, there is no agenda behind this wiki entry, its simply something i felt was worthy of some sort of record on the net, and i have tried to make it as complete as possible. The criticism i have recieved so far amounts to 'gintor is not worth an article' though i would wager that most of you never heard of it. I figured wikipedia would be the perfect place to publish an article on Gintor, i still would like to persue this but with so much criticism i feel like my efforts have been completely futile, and that wikipedia will indeed delete it regardless of what i do.

Again, if you feel strongly enough about the articles hosted on wikipedia to call for the deletion of said articles despite other people's time and effort, then surely you could lend a hand and make a few constructive suggestions. It is obvious that i am struggling to meet the guidelines. Throw me a bone huh?

thanks to thoes of you who have messaged me with information.

--N0 m3RcY 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I think there is some evidence of notability here, which I'd like to see worked up. Are there stats on the number of users, rather than volume of downloads? It seems specious to argue it's only famous among a certain group of people. How many people who don't follow lower league English football have heard of the hundreds (thousands?) of lower league English footballers (past and present) that have articles here? --Dweller 16:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Its difficult to find references to gintor.com, since with the death of HTTP most of the sites in the category went down, though it may be possible to find cached toplist sites etc... I am hesitant to base the entire article on proving gintor's noteworthyness, but thanks for the suggestion i will start looking. --N0 m3RcY 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of noteworthiness (which is not a policy) as of verifiability. Wikipedia can only keep information which anyone can prove to be true; it doesn't matter how well-known or important something was, if we cannot confirm that the article is accurate, unfortunately we cannot keep it. As you say, it's hard to find sources for dead sites, and unfortunately that means it's hard to meet Wikipedia's policies when writing on them...

Were there perhaps any controversies relating to this site offline? Was it targeted by any anti-piracy campaigns, for example? If you can find anything like that, any mentions in books or newspapers or magazines, then your case will become much stronger. — Haeleth Talk 22:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is the sort of nonsense that gives Wikipedia a bad name.george 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but weak - It needs to be reworded as it sounds a bit nonsensical and also needs to assert more notability, but I am happy with a keep. Benjaminstewart05:-) 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No references, violates the verifiability policy. All we know about the site is what the editors choose to tell us about it. It even says "(Details may be inaccurate; please change/elaborate as necessary)" which to me is a clear indication that the editors were not working from published sources. It claims "To this day gintor.com is remembered as one of the most notable warez sites in the history of the internet," a very strong claim. If true, it is hard to understand why convincing evidence of that notability is not presented... unless the word "notability" is being used to mean something different from what it usually means. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is/was a http based community, and yet, google gives 81 results and yahoo 241, NO way notable enough to be encyclopediaic information. S33k3r 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not nearly notable enough, article is unsourced. --Coredesat talk 21:24, 27 June 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.