Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FilePile

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FilePile)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The amount of new users here is disturbing, and therefore I cannot close as a delete, despite the overwhelming amount of delete votes. I suggest that this discussion may be reopened later, but it should not become such a circus (caused by both sides) again. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

FilePile

edit
It is online. You used the wrong URL - [2]. - Xed 11:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And as a member [3], you should know. - Xed 23:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to find verifiable information, isnt it? Was that site I blogged about .com or .org? Are they the same? Were they the same then? Is the article about the same one I blogged about? Has FilePile gone private since then? Do I still have an account? What else should I know? Why does it matter? I didn't nominate the article. I didn't even vote until it became clear that no real arguments for keeping it exist. I'm still ready to entertain such discussion, but I'm losing patience with these unfounded insinuations. Dystopos 00:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Luckiliy, I can answer your questions for you. The link was .org see [4]. Hilariously, you've changed it on the original page to .com. Any reason why? Ha. And you've already admitted to being a member on your talk page. Why go to all the lengths of changing .org to .com on your own page? - Xed 00:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This Dystopos certainly is inscrutable. Dystopos 01:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Until he comes up with a real arguement for keeping the page ignore the troll.
  • Delete When did Wikipedia become a web directory? --Ryland 05:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia doesn't need a page on every website in existence thewittyname 06:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No need for this. --SnackAdmiral 01:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no good reason for this page to be here. If "FilePile" is in fact a private community, the only purpose this article serves is self-promotion for the site's users. Nobody seems to know anything definite about "FilePile" other than that the domain name exists; I don't think Wikipedia should be a forum for speculation and pointless self-promotion. What will be next, articles about individual livejournal user pages? --Eo 06:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly a useful web resource, is it. zadcat 14:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every online community considers themselves important and unique, but not every batch of threads and links deserves its own entry here. Davebug 14:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once this private web site gets a Wikipage, then all the private web sites will want one. Wikipedia shouldn't be a vanity project for other web sites. --Grum0613 15:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated above. -℘yrop (talk) 18:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of the internet and there are far more notable sites than this that don't have a page -jimblackler 21:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, unverifiable (both links offered as references require logins). — Adam Conover † 20:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that some of Filepile's 8000 members wish to maintain it as a sort of secret club does not justify removing or defacing accurate information about this important online community.
    • The site has been mentioned and discussed numerous times on several Web sites and blogs, including Metafilter (11 times!). Google reports that nearly 7000 pages contain the site's URL (filepile.org). Given that Filepile is well-known and often discussed, there is a wealth of verifiable information about the site.
    • As well, Wikipedia contains a great many articles on secret societies -- including the Mafia, Ku Klux Klan, and Freemasonry -- information about which one would expect to be difficult to obtain.
      • This "wealth of verifiable information" does not appear in the article, nor are the statistics about how many times a subject has been discussed on Metafilter particularly impressive or encyclopedic. The "secret societies" named have all actually done something that made an impact on the world. If "FilePile" has achieved any notability, it has not been demonstrated here. Dystopos 03:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia contained an article on Metafilter when it had a closed membership, making arguments about Filepile's privacy moot.

--Dunheroin 22:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC) - (User created purely for voting in this ) (Dunheroin's second edit is this) --Celestianpower hab 22:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Metafilter had closed its membership, but the site was viewable to the public.
  • File Pile is not a secret society. It is a private file sharing site.
— Linnwood (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What zadcat said. I come here for useful information, not to find out about a private online community. Flaunted 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • did somebody really just compare the site to that of the KKK and the Mafia? Flaunted 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yet another user created for the purpose of voting delete on this article. Wonder where they all come from ...? - Xed 15:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • actually no, check my date. Flaunted 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • yes, you have 50 contributions. most of them to do with FilePile. As for your statement "I come here for useful information, not to find out about a private online community"... that's a bit absurd as you are a member of FilePile, which is why you (and the others "new users" above) are trying to delete it. - Xed 18:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 50 contributions, i dont fill my day with editing pages trying to get myself banned...so bringing up history doesn't really help your arguement.
  • Delete too secret What is this nonsense? Do we have to have wikipedia entries on every private web site in existence? ZviGilbert 17:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have removed the strike-throughs added to other people's comments. Leave it up to the administrator who closes the discussion to evaluate the merit of particular votes. Dystopos 18:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete personal attack too secret The original intent of this article seems to have been to libel Mr. Torrez, indicating that he runs some sort of piracy operation. Since the site is private there is no way to confirm this. The site may be interesting, but we have no way of knowing much about it and confirming the truth of what contributors write about it.--tranquileye 20:53, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Comment Which site is this article about? FilePile.com was a shareware BBS site in the 1990s. FilePile.org is a private site of some sort.--tranquileye 20:53, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Delete Upon furher reflection, I have decided to change my vote. This website is no more important than any other on the internet and does not require a wikipedia page. It is a blip with-in a blip on the radar screen of the internet -- GIR 14:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure what the value is to the wiki about this site. Those that have axes to grind about keeping it need to get some persepctive and understand that everything that is in a wiki may not really need to be there. Plus the personal attacks in this entry will just mean that a single person will be able to carry on a pointless campaign that those involved must follow to erase the BS. This is not was a wiki is about. Delete this entry and move it to the USENET. sirhc_srihc 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Private Site.
  • Delete Private Site. PugAchev 01:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Private Site. ElVaquero 21:54, August 15, 2005
  • Delete Not even as notable as GNAA. Kwh 06:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete i created an account at Wikipedia today. yes, thank you, i am feeling right at home. i'd been a bit of a lurker, reading lots of great articles but never felt i really had the time to get involved. i could tell that people put a lot of time and effort into creating compelling and accurate content here. but then today i got an IM from a friend telling me about all of this ridiculous business going on relative to this File Pile stuff. always interested in a good laugh i came to check it out. so i find what appears to be an inaccurate and volatile page dedicated to a website that nobody knows much about. i see alot of accusations of "vandalism" but without any way to verify one way or another, who's to say anything is valid or not? a screenshot is hardly a smoking gun nor a basis for fact. what's the big deal about a site that exchanges pictures, music, and movies amongst members? i could name 15 of those off the top of my head. i suppose i am not a member of File Pile because i have found outlets for what i want at every turn(link) on the internet. please accept my delete vote as my first official contribution to Wikipedia. if i can't be buggered to create new content, i can certainly help by getting rid of the useless stuff. - dexXed
    • (User created purely for voting in this - Xed enter your comments and date stamp here - thanks buddy!)
  • Keep - Most delete users were created to vote for this articles deletion. Also they removed GIR's keep vote, and possibly others. Note: a user with the IP 158.234.10.144 has been trying to get my password. I expect it's one of the above "new users". Can an admin block them, and their colleagues? It seems like its an orchestrated campaign. Thanks. - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examination of the article history would reveal if there were any other votes deleted, and by whom. I don't know what you mean by "and their colleagues". There are established measures that can be taken against vandals and sockpuppets. Dystopos 13:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second Dystopos. Also, though there appear to be sock puppets / very new users voting on this article, that in itself is certainly not a reason to KEEP the page -- at the most, their votes should simply be discounted. Xed, thanks for being vigilant about who's who in this vote, but I will point out that you haven't offered a positive reason for why it should be kept. The real issue is whether this article is appropriate for the Wikipedia -- can you offer an argument for why this particular private, inaccessible, low-membership site deserves inclusion? Frankly, I can't see what distinguishes it from any of the other thousands of small communities on the web. — Adam Conover † 19:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable vanity, probable advertising. Rob Church Talk | Desk 23:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did this figure of 8000 come from? A lot of discussion on the merits of small census-designated places and GNAA has taken place and they have been kept for various reasons. What I'm missing here is any argument that "FilePile" has done anything worthy of mention in an encyclopedia besides (probably) existing and (possibly) spawning some VfD puppets. I had't voted until now, but I'm starting to agree with the nominator. Delete Dystopos 21:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC) -- I checked up on the "Andre Torrez" linked in the FilePile article, and he does list "FilePile" among his "more me" projects. The link just goes to the login page. So we can verify it's existence. Also, it looks like he worked on "DropCash" which I *have* actually heard of. Maybe an article about Torrez or DropCash with a mention of FilePile as a private file-trading site is better than keeping an article with little hope having encyclopedic content? Just a thought. Dystopos 21:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Further proof of an organised campaign in that User:AndreTorrez has removed any mention of Filepile from one on the linked pages in the article. No one can deny its organised now. In fact the users may all be Andre Torrez. - Xed

If it can be proved that User:Linnwood is a member of Filepile, and therefore started the orchestrated campaign to delete this article, would that invalidate the Vote for Deletion? - Xed 00:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist party FilePile — Linnwood (talk) ]] 00:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I thought I started this campaign single-handedly. You need to get your hunches in order, mister. AndreTorrez 00:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no such thing as "invalidating" the vote for deletion. The worst case is "no consensus" and some vandal policing. The subjects of Wikipedia articles have been allowed to comment in VfD, but usually their votes are discounted. It is probably best to report your suspicions with as much restraint as possible. Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. (And that goes for everybody). Dystopos 00:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't even know how to vote. I am responding to his attacks about my "waging a campaign single-handedly".
  • Delete. Non-notable file-sharing site, and many claims aren't verifiable. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, this page has gotten confusing to read. I've made an attempt to start a conversation about this whole mess on the article's talk page, by way of breaking down my perspective on the events of the past few days. — Adam Conover † 06:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


  • Strong Delete Ignore every other argument about new users voting, vandalism, personal vendettas, etc. and cut this argument down to what the vote for deletion page says it must be about. The article. In this case, what you have is one description which may or may not be accurate about a closed or perhaps non-existent site. How would anyone check the veracity of the article? At the present time it's of no more value than idle speculation and as such is not going to help anyone understand anything. If the article were re-written to the point where it was filled with "alleged to", "supposedly", "might have", "has been rumored to be", etc. then maybe it would meet what seem to be the quality standards required of Wikipedia. If not, then the article as it stands is of no merit, because there is no way to take what you have in front of you and verify whether it is in fact true or utter nonsense. And furthermore, that situation is not going to change. When I go to FilePile.com I get no site at all and FilePile.org is a login with no new user signup.
  • Ask yourself, if someone were to write any other article and make claims for which they could provide no attribution or proof, what would Wikipedia do? My guess is either require a radical rewrite of the article or delete it altogether. CaptainMarvel 22:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be easier on you now. Can you please cite which FilePile members have confirmed which details, and where they did so? Not that it matters much, as this site is still non-notable. — Adam Conover † 23:44, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Summary of Votes

edit

Note that some of these votes have been made by users who had either no or very few edits before voting. See annotations by Xed above for details. (Just trying to make sure all the info is in one place.) — Adam Conover † 08:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not just some. Nearly all - Xed 09:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A very quick count (i.e., not double-checked) gave me ten votes that you did not comment on. This is hardly "nearly all." — Adam Conover † 20:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I would say only about 5 votes were genuine. The rest were new users, FilePile members, or users who have engaged in vandalism on the article - Xed 21:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Votes of new users are certainly often discounted in tallies. As for FilePile members, apart from account creation date, what means do you have to distinguish who is a FilePile user and who is not? It seems that date of account creation is the only criterion we can use -- certainly, there is nothing in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators that would suggest that a longstanding Wikipedia member who is also a member of FilePile is ineligible for voting.
Yes, but there's an organised campaign to delete it - Xed 23:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Just not very well organized, I guess. --tranquileye 12:12:16, 2005-08-18 (UTC)[reply]

As for vandals, there is also nothing that outright precludes them from voting; additionally, as I have mentioned elsewhere you have been far too liberal with the term "vandal", applying it to any editor who makes a deletion you disagree with. (The best example being the editor who believed that Flickr photosets were not appropriate material for an encyclopedia. I, for one, agree with him -- that editor was not a vandal, and neither are many of the others you have so labelled.)

In an organised campaign, some will make smaller vandalisms than others. - Xed 23:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the new users who voted on this page are suspect, but about the rest we can say nothing with certainty. — Adam Conover † 22:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


Xed, can we possibly avoid having an edit war on the section below? You have had your say above -- I proposed this section as a way to tally which voters had a large number of edits, not as a quick summary of every attack that has been made against every voter. The admin who decides this issue will, I'm sure, read everything that everyone has written, and make their decision based on that. If we are just going to fight over this section as well, I suggest we simply delete it, as it will not help anyone. So instead, can we just keep it NPOV -- that is, just that information on which we can all agree? — Adam Conover † 16:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the admin will read everything. So allow them to do that. Stop removing relevant information. - Xed 16:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to repeat your characterizations in the section below. The facts can speak for themselves. (And if fthey don't, you've compiled quite a compendium of clues in the section above) Dystopos 21:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have deleted the tally. It was doing nothing but causing an edit war, and it didn't actually provide any information that wasn't already available above. (It is also against the VfD process, as it turns out.) I suggest that the annotation of specific users continue in COMMENT format -- so Xed, if you want to say something about a user, you can add a comment below their votes, and if someone else wants to refute it, they can comment below your post. That way no one will be deleting anything, only adding comments. This deletion on my part is not vandalism -- rather, it is an attempt to change the way matters are being conducted on this page to minimise endless reverting and foster real discussion. If you feel any information might have been discarded with the tally, go into the history and find it, then post it above. I think, though, that we'll all be better off without a revert war, right? Let's do this right, guys. — Adam Conover † 23:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Reinstated. The only reason people wanted it removed was to remove evidence of their vandalism, to remove mention of their filepile membership, and to obfuscate the vote etc. The tally saves anyone time by letting people see immediately, rather than trawl thru the history. - Xed 23:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redeleted. Xed, the problem with the tally is that there is no way to discuss what BELONGS on the tally other than via a revert war. For example, I take exception to your description of one user as a "hoax user", an accusation which you have not explained or justified. However, if I try to alter the tally, you revert it. The tally is, in essence, useless, because we are not going to be able to come to an agreement on it. Therefore, we need to enable ourselves to discuss each charge, and the tally box is preventing that. Once we all agree, we should certainly reinstate the box, but until then we cannot possibly have a stable, undisputed, tally that doesn't cause interminable revert wars. Unless you have no interest in resolving the current untenable state of affairs -- or another suggestion for how we might do so, other than that we all meekly allow you to label users in whatever way you wish -- leave the tally deleted for now. You will still get your say in the comments on votes above. — Adam Conover † 23:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Stop making it difficult for admins - Xed 00:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Are you an admin? I don't see any special markers on you or on your individual page which would indicate it? CaptainMarvel 03:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redeleted again, as it remains clear the Wikipedia Guide to VfDs specifically says that tables like this should not exist ("Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process."). I'm not really sure why the removal of this is controversial, either. Jason 01:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Jason -- I read that guideline earlier today, but was in a rush as I made my last edit so I didn't have time to go find it. I fully admit that it was my own mistake suggesting it in the first place -- my goal was to pull the content out of the mess this page has become a little bit, but obviously that effort was misguided, and backfired to boot.
Linwood, I have that concern as well. Still, if you read over the various votes, even if you exclude all the "new users" and half of the rest of the voters Xed wants excluded for whatever reason, it's pretty clear that the voting is heavily lopsided towards Delete. Of course, "consensus" is (as defined by Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators) a huge grey area, and this VfD is obviously grayer than most -- still, I have confidence that a careful admin will be able to sort through this mess without TOO much difficulty, and make a decision that isn't influenced by our or anyone else's bad behavior. — Adam Conover † 05:32, August 19, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FilePile&oldid=1110105328"