Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What.cd


 * 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   no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Too much SPA activity to properly determine a good faith consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What.cd

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The deletion template was chosen due to few things: the article itself is of no value, no information to the public (as it's a closed down community); due to the fact that similar utterances of this site have been removed due to advertising, most notably on the oink.cd page, where every mention of what.cd (along with waffles.fm) is removed. also, almost all the sources are non-reliable and speculative (usually bringing dangerous misinformation to the site). if all that does not suffice, common sense would place this article in a "no particular importance" field. it's just a small site which does not want any publicity. Soul Eater (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; This site is not well known, nor does it wish to become well known. The public at large really does not have an interest in this, nor should they.  A music file sharing site is not the kind of entity that needs to be represented (advertised for?) on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.15.202 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep; I don't believe the nominators rationale is reasonable.
 * the article itself is of no value, no information to the public (as it's a closed down community) - being a close community makes no difference, the article has value in that it a) is apparently a successor to OiNK and b) was used to leak some notable material online
 * due to the fact that similar utterances of this site have been removed due to advertising, most notably on the oink.cd page - unsure what that means. I guess external links to it from the OiNK page, which strikes me as correct under the EL's policy. However I do not think this is a sound deletion rationale.
 * almost all the sources are non-reliable and speculative (usually bringing dangerous misinformation to the site).; not the case. TorrentFreak has been judged reliable for Torrent articles, I asked about Fast Company and I believe that is reliable also, the remaining sources are all very reliable (Guardian etc.). I don;t think any information in the article is speculative; it is quite strongly factual based on the sources.
 * common sense would place this article in a "no particular importance" field. - this is the only deletion criteria that has merit, even if the relevant policy is not cited or referenced correctly. I wrote the page after flicking through "request for page creation" and it sprung out; and the time I was not sure it satisfied WP:WEB but I believe it just about does so.
 * it's just a small site which does not want any publicity - not valid deletion rationale
 * Ultimately I decided the article was worth creating, since then it has come under pretty sustained and incoherent IP/new editor attack. Which surprised me (and is perhaps why I am being particularly defensive of it :)). (I hate to take that tack, but it is worth noting that the nominator is an infrequent editor with little AFD experience, who popped up after not really editing for a month to instantly Speedy nominate and then, once declined, take the article to AFD) I think, however, that the site is relatively notable and is sufficiently covered to pass muster :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's come under new editor attack because publicity is bad for the site, and a lot of its members realize this. This may be a good rationale for them not wanting Wikipedia to not have a web page about it, but it's insufficient rationale for Wikipedia. I sympathize and agree with them from a certain perspective, but I'm sure there are plenty of other people and organizations that wish they weren't in Wikipedia, either, and ultimately, it's not up to them.--209.254.9.194 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Burn it with fire - Fails all 3 of the criteria per WP:WEB.  Barking Fish  19:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See I was unsure on that one - but it definitely passes point one :) Some of the mentions are trivial, but the Guardian, TC and TF cites are not --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. While What.cd appears to be a large online community (having, seemingly, over 100,000 accounts), it's not been covered by many media outlets - There's hardly any results, for example, on Google News. Most coverage is on filesharing blogs and forums, and while it seems to be well-known in those communities, it's not as notorious as Oink in the mainstream media - Yet. The rationale for deletion because the site is closed, however, is not a valid one - It's a matter of coverage, and I'm not sure there's enough yet. The community would probably welcome the article's deletion, but that's not a reason to delete it, so to speak. Esteffect (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I also feel that the large list of sources, that is almost as long as the article (which features some rather trivial information as it is) is a case of WP:MASK, and trying to make the subject seem that it's had more coverage than the reality suggests. Esteffect (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a web community with an intentionally limited membership. On some rare occasions, musical releases are leaked on it and it gets a smattering of tech/music news coverage, then the site goes back to obscurity. The Twitter accounts of Jersey Shore cast members get exponentially more press than this site. It's just not very important. Perceive (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough; one of the main problems is that most search engines seem to drop the "." - Google particularly, dirtying the search results. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There has been enough media coverage to demonstrate notability. Captain   panda  21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there has. The sources given are mostly technology sites that cover many websites (and a large number of torrent trackers), and as such are specialist and not particularly assertive of notability. The mentions by The Guardian and Pitchfork would be if they were about the site, but they're about Radiohead, and a rumour that they released the song on the site. That, for me, does not indicate anything other than Radiohead being covered, with the website an after thought. Oink has an article due to the vast coverage of a court case and the shutdown, but What.cd has a few incredibly trivial mentions by mainstream media sources, and then a large number on filesharing sites. That doesn't, for me, demonstrate enough coverage. We have to be careful not to look at the big source list that's padding it out. As I note above, I think there's a little bit of WP:MASK going on here. Esteffect (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a deliberate masking I promise :) I just tried to source as much as possible, partly because of the disputed content. I think your argument is the only really valid one in favour of deletion - and I might agree, a lot is marginal. But the thing that convinced me is the COFEE leak, which was a reasonably big thing, made CNet, and had to be responded to by site staff. I think the fact that they are all tech sources is not a problem, but the niche ones are a problem, as you say. I don't think TorrentFreak established notability, for example. It's... marginal in my mind, a lot of relatively notable stuff and nothing major to put the matter to rest - I'm an inclusionist so I come down in favour of such articles :D --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, AFD isn't here for universal agreement. However, I'm of the view that one CNet mention of the leak of Microsoft COFEE doesn't assert notability, either. If it was a big thing, as you put it, then it'd have made other news outlets too. It's probably the only direct coverage by a reputable source that the site has had (that isn't about something else primarily). If there were two or three more cases of coverage at that level, then I'd be for the article's inclusion. Esteffect (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, solid point - it is hanging on by its finger nails somewhat. Frustratingly the COFEE leak was well reported, but everyone just says "a Torrent site", which is completely useless :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 22:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be 100% clear the sources I have for COFEE leak are; mainstream press - CNet and SFGate (San Francisco Chronicle). tech sources - TechDirt and TorrentFreak. Nothing else mentions them by name --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 22:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's partly the problem. If the site were particularly notable in the mainstream, then the site's name would be mentioned. Referring to it as 'torrent site' suggests it's not notable in the mainstream. Esteffect (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article does not actually describe the website in question very well. Rather, it describes a few almost-notable events relating to the website.  I do not believe sources exist which describe the website itself, and therefore it seems to me that the website is not notable.  --96.241.179.251 (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * — 96.241.179.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "private BitTorrent tracker" is what most sources refer to it. I am not sure what else is needed on that score :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Article describes notable and sourced events about website which is its subject. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

— Markiij (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Sources mostly only speculate. Information on this subject is too hard to verify. This article also lacks even the most basic information. Please delete this article. Markiij (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above. Burned  thru  18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

— 70.226.198.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 129.241.158.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete How this gets on here, and things like Slenderman don't, really confuses me sometimes... 70.226.198.238 (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not of public interest. 129.241.158.196 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (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.