Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OiNK


 * 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 Snowball keep: the consensus is obviously towards keep. Computerjoe 's talk 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OiNK

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a newsservice. Website notable only once for being raided. Will (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - "OiNK was the largest source of leaked albums in the world" sounds notable to me GideonF 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to "Oink (Bittorrent site)". "OiNK" obviously violates our style guidelines regarding the use of superfluous/meaningless internal capitalization. 170.140.210.108 18:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; if we are to move the article it should be to "Oink (BitTorrent site)". jareha (comments) 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this, the site is notable, just because it's not important to YOU doesn't mean the same to the rest of us. I don't think style guideline should apply, since that is how they presented their name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.178.109.23 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)  — 207.178.109.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The style guideline applies regardless of how the site styles its own name. This is a settled matter at WP:MOSTM and moving the page is indisputable. 170.140.210.108 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The style guideline states that in the case of CamelCase it is a judgment call. See other example BitTorrent articles such as isoHunt and TorrentSpy. Nonforma 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And this is obviously not camel case: it's one word spelled with idiosyncratic capitalization. This is a routine matter in MOSTM debates and rarely turns out any other way. 170.140.210.108 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting into semantics. OiNK can easily be CamelCase, break it up into O i NK. All you need is justification. It's going to be an editorial call. Do you have any precedence for other such common deletions? Nonforma 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: What is 170.140.210.108's rationale for deletion, except that the article title perhaps should be changed? Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My rationale was merely that of the nominator. As the day progresses I would expect the volume of news to increase; notability, of course, is not temporary so we'll need a few weeks to find out whether the site became notable in a lasting way as a result of this incitend. 170.140.210.108 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - "OiNK was an amazing and notable site. If we're deleting this article for the way they used capitalization in their name, that's ridiculous seeing as that's the way they actually did say their name." sounds notable to me DerfBWH 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per GideonF. As an aside, it would be an interesting challenge to find a online community with almost 200,000 members that doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. --Ori.livneh 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I read three news articles about Oink today.  None of them mentioned that Oink was a Bittorrent tracker.  I had to come here to find that out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.53 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Possibly the most important private tracker and was one of the most important trackers, full-stop. Also, with regard to the gentleman who was calling for a move because of the capitalisation, I would draw his attention to the page on NeXT which takes account of that name's unusual use of the upper case. --John Lunney 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha! A dose of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should cure you of that notion. 170.140.210.108 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - all over the news its definetly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew22k (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - See the reason for nomination though. &mdash; Northgrove 19:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article was apparently created as a post mortem article, which just comes off as weird to me. If it was notable, why wasn't it here when it was, like, alive and active? Is this a reactionary article creation from the news coverage (this could violate WP:NOTNEWS), or because it did bear notability on its own before? All sorts of things pop up on Wikipedia, but this one didn't until it was dead, which strikes me as strange. I definitely see where the nominator is coming from here. -- &mdash; Northgrove 19:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Northgrove, I think it should have been on Wikipedia before this latest episode. Just because it wasn't isn't necessarily a ground for deletion. Talk:Oink suggested to me that people's qualms were mostly about OiNK not being mentioned in sufficiently noteworthy, independent websites. I think that when the curtain falls on the BitTorrent era of illegal P2P, OiNK will have been one of the major players, notable for its size and the ability of its members to consistently obtain unreleased material. --Ori.livneh 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, per GideonF. jareha (comments) 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was an incredibly popular website in the bittorrent community, and deserves at least a mention, as stated above. In fact, at one point, it did have an entry in Wikipedia that was fairly extensive.  I have no idea why it was ever taken down to begin with.
 * Keep - This may be a 'post mortem' article, but most likely due to it's private status when it was running. Most other major BitTorrent sites have articles; I see no reason why OiNK should be excluded. Nonforma 20:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a certain amount of secrecy about Oink, which menat that a Wikipedia article wouldn't necessarily have been desired. --John Lunney 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Was' being the keyword there. What little actual secrecy it used to have is obviously gone now. Besides, how many Wikipedia articles are undesired? Nonforma 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - A very well known site for music torrent, and all that happened with the raid deserves a mention. Tabor 20:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to OiNK (bittorrent) or something. --CCFreak2K 20:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Multiple References, The IFPI claim makes it notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep notable, many news sources etc. SECProto 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since Oink was one of the biggest torrent trackers and the closing of it, by arresting the person behind the site, is completely unprecedented. Thus it is notable enough to merit an article of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.201.214 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Now that there are major references, BBC, etc. It's verifiable enough to be listed, before that wasn't the case even though it was notable.  Lil' Dice  (yeah, I said it!) - talk 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Was a very important private tracker. Important to p2p music sharing in general, e.g. being one of the first private trackers to have minimum bitrate an quality requirements for shared music, before there were scene standards for shared music. Also, notable as the first bittorrent tracker to be shut down in the UK - the decision in the legal case against OiNK will set an important legal precedent that can be included in the article. - 99.231.66.238 21:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC) — 99.231.66.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, very large, popular and well known tracker – the recent events makes it doubtlessly notable. 81.225.133.69 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC) — 81.225.133.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - big and known for the perfect quality rips throughout the site 87.174.163.155 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC) — 87.174.163.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - very well known in the P2P community. Qualifies as "Notable" Mtwstudios 21:23, 23 October 2007 (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.