Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapidshare networks


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Rapidshare networks

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete - I find plenty of WP:RS for RapidShare (which has its own article). But nothing for this separate company called Rapidshare networks which operates a site RapidShare.net that relies on the website of RapidShare.  It seems easy to confuse the two, but this article is about the relatively unknown one and as far as I can tell there are no reliable sources documenting notability. To add further to the confusion I have found another website called rsfind.com which seems to be a very similar copy of rapidshare.net as well:   And I also found another website called rapidsharedata.com which seems to be a very similar copy of rapidshare.net as well:    All 3 of these sites seem to be mirrors of each other and all play on the confusion with the real rapidshare.com.  Additionally all 3 of the sites do not have contact addresses on their websites.  They just utilize an e-mail form.  So it is quite likely that all 3 websites are the same operation and are engaged in attempting to build traffic through confusion with the company Rapidshare.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no reliable sources covering this. However, I did find eveidence that this may be part of a spamming campaign.  The same text as this article also appears posted here.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge I am not sure this is a completely separate site, and could not be included in the main article. That article describes a considerable dispute about what the actual authentic site is. It would seem best to combine the articles, unless someone can find a definitive third party account to justify separating them.   DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It is pretty clear to me that it is an entirely separate operation that is attempting to play on confusion with the primary website. If you take a look at the domain registration of the actual website (rapidshare.com) the European company that operates it is very forthcoming with complete registration details: .  However if you look at the domain registration for the one in this article (rapidshare.net) it is a hidden anonymous domain registration (which is much less common for notable companies that have operating offices, etc.) based out of Canada:  . The other mirrors of the site also have anonymous/fake contact details:   and . ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - A merge is not appropriate. The two entities are not related.  Rapidshare is a file hosting service.  Rapidshare.net (Rapisdshare Networks) just indexes the file son Rapidshare.  It's like saying Google is related to Microsoft because Google has indexed files on Microsoft's web site.  Unless there is evidence to support them being related operations, a merge would not make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That is a very good analogy Whpq. But to take it one step further it would be as if Google ran a website called Microsoft.net and indexed the files on Microsoft.com! I agree a merge is definitely not appropriate.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. Seems clear to me that merger is inappropriate. Tim Song (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2009 (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.