User talk:N0 m3RcY

Gintor
Ok, I'm sorry. I understand this is your first wikipedia article, let me try to help. When I said this article is about Gintor.com, what I meant was that this is about Gintor in particular. Even though warez merits a page, and even if Gintor was a part of the warez community, that does not necessarily mean Gintor merits a page. You need to try to convince people that Gintor has done something concrete which makes it special, or has been written about in another medium, or anything to differentiate it from thousands of other warez hubs. Having its own file format seemed like the closest Gintor has to this, but then the link provides no information. The whole point of a citation is to provide secondary evidence, so blaming filext.com when you chose them as your citation isn't helping. Have you read the guidelines for web notability? See if you can make an argument for Gintor's notability based on the specifications in that guideline. I'm sorry your having some issues with your first article, just know that this happens to a lot of people, and hang in there. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 14:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, sorry for flying off the handle. Just a little taken back by the reaction to my article. There are lots of references to gintor around the web, but it will take some amount of research to dig them up. Im just worried the article will be taken down before i have any chance to rectify this. --N0 m3RcY 14:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article will remain as nominated for deletion for at least five days, so you have time to make a case and clean up the article. If you haven't read the Guide to deletion you should, it will help you understand the process. Sorry if the comments at the AfD page seem gruff or curt, its just that a lot of bad pages get created on Wikipedia that cause people to lean towards deletion. I'm sure you'll find that most Wikipedians are more than willing to listen to a calm, rational argument for keeping the page. Good luck. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to Nscheffey's comments, I can see your point about there being something that sets the site apart, i.e. the file format that sprung out of the site and apparently became commonplace. If this is the case, then I'd suggest first and foremost making the file format the main subject of the article. The majority of the article, discussing the ins and outs of conflicts on the forum, isn't really suitable for Wikipedia, and even if the file format is notable, the forum certainly doesn't appear to be. Therefore, if you mention at the beginning of the article that the file format was the site's most notable contribution, you could then talk about the rest of the site generally so long as you stayed within Wikipedia guidelines. However, as has been said, it would help your case enormously if you could provide some decent sources that mentioned the site and/or the file format, because Wikipedia lives or dies on being able to verify the information contained within. Echoing Nscheffey, I also apologise if I was a little curt in my comment on the AfD page - while it's encouraged to "assume good faith" on WP, so many articles spring up that seem to serve little purpose other than to plug a site, feed someone's vanity or simply attack others, that it's possible to misread intentions. I hope you can still feel like you have a worthwhile contribution to make to the encyclopaedia. Seb Patrick 15:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with referencing gintor, is that the gintor website was taken down many years ago, as where many other http warez sites  when p2p became mainstream. Talking about gintor is paramount to talking about kazaa or napster, problematic is the fact that 'warez' was 'underground' at the time. Short of changing the scope of the article from a general one about gintor to a specific article on the file format, is there any kind of spin you could suggest i put on the article that will bring it more in line with guidelines? --N0 m3RcY 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I recognise that the section on the forum wars seems to be the enphesys of the article, but i could not knowingly leave it out as many gintor members remember that event more than any other in the history of gintor. It is also the single event that contributed the most to gintor's demise. Portrayal of 'The Angry Midget' could seem like a personal attack, and susequently the point of the articled, but it was meant in the spirit of portraying a fictitious villain, in that TAM gained infamy after his actions, and the name is remembered more than the person behind it.
 * Even if Kazaa and Napster are erased from the Internet forever tomorrow they would still merit articles because so much has been written about them in newspapers, magazines, reputable websites, TV, radio. You really need to find some kind of secondary reference to Gintor if it's going to stand a chance. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What he said. Notability in the warez community doesn't hold as much weight as notability in the outside world. Not matter what their contributions to the site or the warez community, someone only known as 'Trevor' or 'The Angry Midget' means nothing to an outside observer. If it'd been written up in, say, Wired or Slashdot, then it would stand a much better chance of retention. --DarkAudit 16:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Need some help
Hi, i am writing this message in the hope that you can briefly look over an article i have created here Gintor.

''I would appreceate some feedback in how i can get it more in line with the wikipedia guidelines as my intentions are good and i am willing to make any compromises to prevent the article being deleted. ''

I am having trouble understanding people's comments in the deletion discussion, as they post using shorthand and quoting rules that as a brand new user, i have difficulty fully understanding.

''any help is much appreceated. Thanks''

--N0 m3RcY 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there, this is getting quite heated, and I would remind all experienced users not to bite the newcomers!! (glare!). Essentially, wikipedia articles must assert notability, in which case how will anyone know whether it is actually a big website, company etc... how will they know that it is as good as it is and to a certain extent whether what is written is true. Furthermore, things need to be notable because if every single website was put onto wikipedia, they would need gigantic servers which would melt every few days. The rules for notability of websites are outlined here, Notability (web), which I see someone else has pointed you to before. I understand that it may be difficult to find sources of notability for the website, but if there are any statistics, they might help, furthermore, when I read the article, it seemed (to my non-websitey mind) a bit non-sensical, in that I couldn't really understand what it was going on about, and this I think, was part of the reason for the nomination. Try rewriting it to a certain extent. If it is deleted, that is very unfortunate, but you can always create articles on other things or edit, and I hope that you do, don't be down heartened by this.
 * I suggest reading some of the guidelines and links on my welcome message, and also, how about perusing through some of the links from here, Shortcuts, I will place something positive on the deletion page, but if it is deleted, it is not out of spite, but because doesn't meet certain criteria. I hope this helps, maybe not in a practical way, but hopefully in not biting newcomers (another glare!) I can provide at least some explanation!. Regards Benjamin stewart05 -) 19:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)