Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empornium (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 of the discussion was keep. Sockpuppets abound but I still don't see any rationale for deleting this article.  Grue  14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empornium

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion among Wikipedia's editors. The aim is to reach a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia, using Wikipedia's policies as the benchmark. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or meatpuppetry . You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy . Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Keep this article. It is information about a wellknown website on the internet. Som people might not like it. Even if we don't like nazi, KKK or satanic people we have to share information about those kind of people too. Information instead of Censorship!

Advertisent for non-notable pornographic website.

• "KEEP!" - Notable history of this website; I didn't see anything about a sales pitch...BCT 7/9/06 5:51PM EST

• Keep - it's clearly not an advertisement - the text is even somewhat biased AGAINST the new site. As has been said elsewhere - a good example of a company taking over a site and trying to silence its critics. Anjow 08:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ""Keep"" - if this article goes because "it's an ad" then the page for Burning Man *has* to go, because it is definitely nothing but a big ad.
• Keep Wikipedia deletion policy not aplicable. Sorry Jimbo you gotta do this one yourself Joey.dale 20:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No wikipedia policy being violated. No reason at all to delete this just because someone doesn't like

the content.

• Keep Revelant article, at worst to be edited, but not suppressed. --Saw192837 13:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC) <1>[reply]

• DEFINITE Keep This article should stay around. It's got relevant info on the website (which has a large base of users), and the quality of writing is at least decent.

• Keep I appreciate having any information available upon any websites that I have strong interests in, such as Empornium.

• VERY Keep I came here for the expressed reason of looking for information on this site. It needs to stay, there's also no tgood reason to remove it.
• Keep Whats the basis for the delete?
• Delete per nom Zzzzz 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an advetisement, its a major torrent site going thru major changes that users do not like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.83.247 (talk • contribs) <2>

• Strong Keep. Major notable torrent site. Many, many ghits. For the most part, non-advert article. -Seidenstud 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or neutral As far as torrent sites go, I'm pretty sure this is among the largest. I know Alexa rank doesn't show up in any notability guidelines, but that number is really good for a site that's nothing but a torrent list. My weakness of the keep comes from that I'm not really convinced that even being among the largest torrent sites really means it needs an article. There's simply not a lot to say about any website that only exists to list files. Exceptions of course would be places like The Pirate Bay, because of huge news coverage. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is the largest site of it's kind, and is very notable, that is evident. As for being pornographic, well wikipedia not not censored for children. I don't see the basis of this nomination other than a mistaken belief it is not notable. HighInBC 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. No duh; Empornium is the pornography equivalent of regular torrent depositories like
  isohunt.com, all of which have articles on Wiki. As HighlnBC pointed out, the fact that it is strictly pornographic in content does not automatically merit its exclusion. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - Doesn't violate
  WP:NN, as it is notable. Not an ad either. PresN 20:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Probably the biggest English-language porn tracker on the net, or else the second biggest. --210.84.35.70 20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, forgot to login. Above comment is mine. --Rankler 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Not only can proponent not spell "advertisement," but he/she obviously knows nothing about this site with upwards of half-a-million members. Not only is it noteworthy, it is arguably one of the most notable sites in existence, and it has never and will never need advertisement. -Ayeroxor 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. One of the largest torrent sites around, and the changes it has gone through are very encyclopedia-worthy.Thisisnotme 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC) <3>[reply]
• Strong Keep. One of the biggest porn-related communities in existence. ComaVN 22:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• REALLY STRONG Keep. A clear example on how a company took over a community supported website and tryed (and succeeded to some sort) to shut off the people who created it, and the people who used it. All to profit from an already very popular website with a large userbase and a large amount of content contributors who themselves didn't profited from it. Johnnyg0 7 July 2006 (the previous comment was posted by 66.36.141.82. HumbleGod 23:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Strong Keep So I've read the
  WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. So the question comes down to "is it an advertisement". I don't think it is. The website is not for profit. It has a long history. It's going through political changes (for which I came here this very night to find out wtf is going on, the forums are down and probably being censored as long time moderators and admins are evicted), and it's literally had hundreds of thousands of users. If anything the page needs to be expanded by people in the know. Furthermore if you delete this page, you need to delete the Slashdot page and a hundred others, just because they describe websites that have large communities of users that are interested in them. Which is just silly. Someone doesn't like porn - and that's not a criteria for deletion. (I have an account, but hey, this is porn so I'm going to be anonymous this time) --65.95.239.51 07:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep. Dunno where you got the idea that this is a non-notable site, the fact that it has almost a million users and is probably the biggest porn community on this planet is more than enough reason... janey the crazy 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly notable, and hardly an advertisment considering all the negative info it has on the recent changes to the site. --Krsont 14:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, very notable website. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP provides valuable info on the nature of the site although im not sure how much current info is genuine. Such as Targetpoint deleting accounts? I cant see it because the material on EMP which people want is provided by the users, so if they delete accounts they annoy and remove uploaders, which reduces the torrents available which reduces the need to visit the site, which reduces hits and revenew.

Also, the old mods keep saying different things such as Target point are deleting accounts to charge a fee, changing ratios to stop people leeching and reinstating an old database to hide the members who have deleted their account. All of those points contradict the other. Such as would deleting accounts not reduce the overall membership? Why change ratios just to restore them barely hours later? If they want membership fees then why reinstate people accounts?

Also, I believe that the old regime are voting low on peoples torrents. Why? Target point wouldnt do it as they would be annoying their own users. Saz and the rest will be doing it to annoy the users enough to go to their new site. Probably do the opposite, if they think doing what they are doing will get them new members they are dead wrong. Loyalty counts for nothing in this, most people just want porn.

Keep the facts and remove everything else designed just to bad mouth target point cause not all of it can be proven.

useless comment Well, there is a lot of misinformation out there, but the accounts were for the most part deleted by the users themselves, possibly as a protest against Targetpoint's apparent intention of making emp a paysite. As for the stats being fudged, I have no idea what that is about. --InitHello 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's currently in the process of adopting a pay account system, and so this is advertising. Joffeloff 19:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read the page. It mentions several times the heavy criticism of the recent takeover of the site. Pretty much seems like the complete opposite of an ad. --Krsont 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Lots of companies that charge money for their product have articles, I don't see the connection. HighInBC 20:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Playboy, SI, Maxim, CNN, Fark, Something Awfull, MILF Hunter all have undisputed Wikipedia links. Consider yourself trumped. --DariusMDeV 72.240.209.78 03:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–Keep This provides an unbiased outline of the history of this site and no matter the outcome be it good or bad. Just from the popularity of the site should prove at least at one point in it's history it was the largest site of it's type and should never be forgotten.--Daguesingman 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DEFINITE Keep Good information here about what Empornium has gone through. This is certainly not advertising and it is a notable site (just because you don't like it does not make it un-notable). It has been the biggest and best of it's kind. Besides all that, why does one wiki page draw the ire of so many people? Those looking for information about the site and what has happened will find it here and isn't that what Wiki is really all about? If you don't like the information contained in the article, add more. Deletion should only be considered in extreme circumstances. Chronocore 8 July 2006

• Keep Just make it editorially clean and factually correct.

• STRONGLY Keep This article is being contested because the controlling interests of Empornium want to hide the truth about what has happened. The current article is unbiased and factual.

• THINK ABOUT THIS - this site served to me as an advert to emporniums free alternatives now empornium has gone pay. This page is the opposite of what you think it is when you recommended delete.

Keep - There is no reason to delete this. --John Lunney 14:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I can't see why the deletion was even suggested in the first place. There articles about other for-profit companies on wikipedia, so this is nothing new. InitHello 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- How are target point hiding the truth? If that was the case why are they telling us new members are paying a fee? Stop being a fanboy and use your own eyes. Sazaraki and the rest are currently ruining EMP. Its funny how everyone moans at Targetpoint but nobody moans at Sazaraki for selling the site up the river to no doubt line his own pockets. Who is to say that wouldnt happen with his new site?

Keep - Just as notable as

Keep- The arguments for deletion so far are weak: "I'm not really convinced that even being among the largest torrent sites really means it needs an article. There's simply not a lot to say about any website that only exists to list files. Exceptions of course would be places like The Pirate Bay, because of huge news coverage." Just because one doesn't think much of a bittorrent site doesn't mean it's unworthy of listing. It is a controversial movement, it is a site that covers a controversial aspect of a controversial movement, and its current seemingly hostile takeover is controversial. Ironically this person recommends the listing of piratebay, which is controlled by the same company which has allegedly taken over empornium, and therefore to list piratebay and not empornium would create a subjective imbalance in wikipedia. "Keep the facts and remove everything else designed just to bad mouth target point cause not all of it can be proven." "It's currently in the process of adopting a pay account system, and so this is advertising." When one considers these two arguments for editing/deletion together, they actually support the need to keep the article mostly intact. The listing discusses the controversial move by the targetpoint corporation to charge new users for the system. That is an unsavory and unappealing aspect to a bittorrent site (bitorrent's purpose being the controversial free sharing of information) and therefore not only should the negatively critical aspects of the article be held intact, it is clearly not advertising, as that aspect of the article presents the site's transformation in a negatively light.

Strong Keep- I see no issues with keeping this page. It is not advertising. The recent changes at the site must be taken into consideration when weighing whether to delete or keep his site, as the motivations of these voters may be biased by their feelings about the site itself and not the Wiki entry. This is not the place to debate those changes. The site is large and notable and its entry in the Wiki should remain. --Sarty 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC) <3>[reply]

Keep Well, I came to wikipedia to look up information regarding the recent torrent of controversy (pun intended) around empornium and its takeover by targetpoint. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia? If the article didn't exist, me and probably tens or hundreds of other people would have not aquired this information. Definitely keep as long as the article is correct and unbiased.

Keep Same as above, would never have known why a controvery existed if this article wasn't here.

• Keep Article contains historical information on a popular topic which is being deleted, hidden or does not exist elsewhere. Zanfar 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of other porn related Wikipedia articles so why should somethings as popular as Empornium be an exception? Aussie Jim 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its information about something that is important to many people.

Keep As a former Admin ousted by the new controling parties and even in light of their continued practice of deception and censorship of whats really going on... I still say Keep. Why? Emp was the largest and best of it's kind. Perhaps I am biased. I'm upset overwhat it's becoming, but even the King gave the colonists respect after the war was over. If Targetpoint can manage to turn a dime over this mess, then more power to them, but it won't be with my sweat or bits.--204.8.204.108 07:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Vic <4>[reply]

• DeleteThe site is not noteable and the article an advertisement. It does not contribute any useful information to Wikipedia. I'm not against porn sites being listed, but this one isn't worth of mention. Davidpdx 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are at least four (maybe more)votes that were made by people who have never used Wikipedia and have no contribution history. I have put numbers by the ones that are bogus votes. Also at least 11 of the keep comments are unsigned. Maybe this isn't truly a vote, but those who are coming here just to vote keep without any history are suspect at best.Davidpdx 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This site is very important to the bittorent community 203.214.112.235 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • CommentThis is yet another person who has no contribution history. Davidpdx 22:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is hardly an advertisement or non-notable. It succinctly describes the site and the most recent occurences with regard to management changes. It is as notable as any torrent site. Contrefait 22:43, 12 July 2006 (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.