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

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. Black Kite (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BitGamer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Result of previous deletion discussion was merge to uncreated article Underground Gamer. 2 years after, article still not created.

Non-notable per WP:GNG (possibly also WP:NRVE and WP:WEB).

Out of the provided sources, the TorrentFreak article covering the website's termination. The remaining source is an anonymous third-party's upload containing salvaged .torrent files and might violate WP's policies regarding external links. ― Padenton |☎ 22:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The secretive world of private torrent sites by nature avoids the sunlight (read: RS), but but here's another. It should also be noted that 65,000 members is huge for a private site. So, worth keeping as a stub. Pax 07:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The secretive nature doesn't excuse it from WP:GNG, and member counts don't make it notable. WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There is no significant coverage here. That may be because the site attempted to hide in the shadows, but it doesn't justify the article. The kitguru link you posted isn't an additional source. It's citing the TorrentFreak article that we're already using as a source. While TorrentFreak has appeared on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and been deemed acceptable on occasion, [1], the problem is that the only coverage the article provides is that the site owners shut it down citing a worsening legal climate, claiming 65,000 members. The rest of the article is all original research. All the cases where TorrentFreak had support in RS noticeboard discussions were articles had a wealth of other information sources. ― Padenton |☎ 19:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 65,000 gamers? Says who, the site? And sorry, but the way WP:V works, the answer to "the subject is too much out of the public eye to gain significant coverage" isn't "... so it's okay to ignore WP:V and the GNG." It's "... and that's why it doesn't qualify for an article." Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and realizing its only claim to being notable is that it isn't. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to merge to. The only reason BitGamer avoided deletion last time was an unproven assertion that the Underground Gamer article would fulfill WP:GNG and WP:V instead. In reality, it would fail them for the same exact reasons.--The Fifth Horseman (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:NOTINHERITED, which was somehow forgotten in the first AFD. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I've found some more foreign language sources not used in the article: [2] [3]. Stickee (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere mention of a name does not make it a source. The first link is just another tertiary source citing TorrentFreak regarding the tracker's closure, further establishing the tracker's only claim to notability is that it closed. The second only mentions the name as an example of private tracker, it does not cover it in any depth - I can't fathom how that could be counted a source at all. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE It's a dead marginal brand with only a little coverage. It is a footnote in the history of online piracy. The article has some intrinsic worth, but not as a stand alone article.

The last time it was considered for deletion is was supposed to be merged in an as yet uncreated article I think it should be mentioned somewhere, as it is part of software piracy. That's where it should be merged, not deleted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's been 2 years and the article was never created because Underground-Gamer had just as little notability, even less based on the above arguments, as it had fewer members. Also, as a side note, the owner of these sites likely wouldn'tve wanted either article, if you're supporting this as a monument to them. These sites have few reliable sources about them because they want them that way. There are plenty of other large private trackers, none which want attention. Its part of software piracy is insignificant, far more has always been shared on public trackers. ― Padenton |☎ 15:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only effect "merging to an uncreated article" had last time was to postpone deletion indefinitely. There is no basis to expect the hypothetical parent article will be created, and none to expect it would satisfy WP:GNG and WP:RS. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 05:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 05:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 05:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "Created page with 'BitGamer is a defunct invite-only major private Bittorrent tracker that shut down on January 1st" right in the 1st edit. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These days 65,000 isn't a big number anymore, with popular membership going up to 7 to 8 figures. More importantly no reliable sources covering the subject in detail could be found, therefore making it unverifiable. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 7 April 2015 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.