Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FilePile (2nd nomination)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. R adiant _>|< 08:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

First attempt at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FilePile closed as hopeless. Abstain brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 05:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep - for these reasons:
  • it has over 8000 members. WP:WEB mentions a lower limit of 5000 for notability. "Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members"
  • 7000 sites contain the site's URL.
  • Point of Rocks, Wyoming has an article (population: 3), so an 8000 strong website surely should.
  • The site has even inspired a parody.
  • the fact that dozens of FilePile members have defaced the article makes it more notable, in the same way that the Sollog article was made more notable by it's repeated vandalism by Sollogites.
  • it has even been mentioned in the same breath by Jason Kottke with Wikipedia and Firefox [1]
  • It is currently active [2], despite what the FilePile defacers would say. FilePile gets websites to remove their links to FilePile (see the current version of that page here)
    • Both of those links generate "404-Page not found" Eo 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
  • The site appears to be the source of many internet memes and discussion on other sites, therefore it conforms to WP:WEB in the sense that "the website has had some impact on people beyond its core user base"
  • Nearly all of the website's peers (see here) have articles.

- Xed 08:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete. The site is so secretive that very little about them is verifiable. Even at best they do not appear notable. If they want to remain a secret then I say, "let them". Also, I note that the admin who closed the last VfD defaulted to 'keep' simply because of the "circus" that resulted. He suggested that "this discussion may be reopened later" and I see no reason to wait longer. This information does not enrich humanity in any way. -Willmcw 09:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too secret. If they don't want an article about their site, so be it. Plus they'll end up getting shut down when the RIAA or MPAA or whoever catches up with them, anyway. Then we could recreate the article and detail how they all got fined, *giggle*. Proto t c 10:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) Weak keep. Appears to meet WP:WEB, but is a private site. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

Delete after more research. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete: non-notable, private, reportedly offline website. Difficult to verify information (e.g., there has been much controversy over whether the screenshot is even legitimate, or whether it has been edited, and there is no way to verify this). Jason 11:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

And to look at the some of reasons given by Xed to keep: first, we have no idea how many members the site has, it being private. Re: Points of Rock, the criteria for maintenance of geographical location stubs has no bearing on the criteria for maintenance of pages about non-notable subjects (i.e., my house has seven residents in it, should I put a page up on Wikipedia?). Parodies don't make a site notable in an of themselves. And mention by Jason Kottke doesn't make a site notable (or if it does, we have a lot of work to do cataloging all the sites, memes, people, places, and other subjects he's covered and adding those citations and references to those articles). Jason 11:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. R adiant _>|< 12:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, quick plainly non-notable. The actual number of active users of the site has been estimated (by FilePile members) to be around 600, which is plainly less than the five-thousand required by WP:WEB. The article fits neither of the other two heuristics for website inclusion, nor any other others. Xed's case is flimsy at best. — Adam Conover † 12:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete too secret, non-notable. While quite a few blogs linked to the site prior to 2003, there is no academic literature on the site and it has not been archived at the Internet Archive. What is known about the site does not indicate that it is notable, and File Pile does not meet the WP:WEB impact criteria for Web sites. --tranquileye 13:44:23, 2005年08月26日 (UTC)
• Delete, unsubstantiated article about non notable private site Townbully 13:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete, nn --Flaunted 14:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment The page was already deleted once.
• Delete. impossible to produce encyclopedic article or to demonstrate notability under WP's requirement for verifiability and prohibition of original research. If File Pile merits notice, it will get it somewhere else first. Dystopos 15:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment - in your nomination, you don't actually give any valid reasons to relist the article. That an article failed VfD previously is not grounds for immediate relisting. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]

The last VfD saw an overwhelming number of Delete votes, but the process itself was a train wreck that ended with an admin decision of no consensus. After further discussion and a RfC on the page, there developed a near consensus that the subject was non-notable and unverifiable, and the article was re-nominated. --tranquileye 16:21:38, 2005年08月26日 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This VfD seems to have happened because of pressure from sockpuppets and filepile users for another vote. Wikipedia should resist such pressure. - Xed 17:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete unless someone can figure out a way to make it verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete nn PugAchev 16:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obscure and unsubstantiated. Not notable. - EurekaLott 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete too secret, haven't changed my opinion since the original delete vote. ZviGilbert 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete nn, not of general interest zadcat 17:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete information inherently unverifiable Sliggy 18:25, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with the above comments about being unverifiable. Carbonite | Talk 18:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete, for reasons cited above about notability, verifiability and lack thereof. Dottore So 18:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete. Site seems notable only to its members. Perhaps if public interest could be shown it would be worthy of an entry, but that has not been documented.--Ceart99 20:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete as per my last VfD vote. Xed, Point of Rocks, Wyoming, was generated by Rambot, not a human, and I think we've agreed that Rambot's articles are acceptable. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 20:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete. This entry is only notable to ex-members and alleged members. Compare/contrast recent VfDs for Digg, with many more users and is a public site. The only significant contributes seem to be ex-members with an axe to grind and are as reliable as relying on Pat Robertson or Oral Roberts to provide verifyable information on God. See this version for an example of the axe-grinding, unreferenced/unsubstantiated, and misleading/apparently false information that Xed provides. Massive problems in Wikipedia:Verifiability such as author's record, conflict of interest, not encyclopedic because of threshold for verifiability (truth aside), extensive original research. Not a place for original research. Unreferenced/unverified/unsubstantiated/inflamatory information put to the side, it makes for a non-notable topic. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy lists WP:NOT as a problem that may require deletion. Specifically, Propaganda and advertising. Should also be prevented from recreation until site is notable and meets other criteria. --Jmccorm 21:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable, and original research. 8000 members for a forum isn't really that many: my standard is 50,000. --Carnildo 22:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete. As per my previous vote. Not notable, original research. Eo 22:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable and contentious. thewittyname 23:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 23:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete; I called for the first nomination VfD that ended in a mess. This site is first and foremost a private site. Nothing about it can be verified. More so, if it wasn't private, based on what we do know, it still would not be notable. — Linnwood 23:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete, per Jmccorm above. I also run a website with more than 8,000 unique members, but I am not going to tell you where to find it or how to log in. Kwh 20:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any notability is non-verifiable. All that is verifiable is its existence which in itself is not notable. --Sut2000 21:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete. I can't believe that this page is still around. Unverifiable, not notable, private web sites shouldn't get their own Wikipage. Jmccorm pretty much nails it. --Grum0613 01:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete. Unverifiable and not notable to boot.. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete, nn Matt Yohe 14:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete, non-notable private site. Aquillion 02:00, 2 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.