Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Gintor - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nscheffey (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 27 June 2006 ([]: Delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:11, 27 June 2006 by Nscheffey (talk | contribs) ([]: Delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Gintor

Article about a closed-down non-notable Warze website/community. Netsnipe 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The article is a historical record of the most prolific and well known warez site of its time period, and was only created due to requests. There are no grounds for deletion as it does not breach any copywrights nor does it encourage or facilitate illegal activities. The board from 4 years ago of which Tevildo speaks no longer exists, infact hostilities were halted and the two communities remained friends after the conflict. --N0 m3RcY 12:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Evidence that it passes WP:WEB is still required. Along with some major copy-editing for spelling and grammar. Tevildo 12:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To this day gintor.com is remembered as one of the most notable warez sites in the history of the internet, yet at the same time was known only to people who seeked it. - just about says it all, really. If it was only known by people who "seeked" it, then presumably no verification of its status as "one of the most notable" can't be, erm, "seeked". No verification, no notability. No notability, no Wiki. Delete. Seb Patrick 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is to say it was known amongst people who used warez sites, similarly a website about birdwatching however prolific, would generally have its userbase limited to birdwatchers.

The statement yet at the same time was known only to people who seeked it is simply a play on words referencing the quote on the main page. Furthermore there are references to Gintor all over the web, more notably to its file format which is referenced on several File Extension databases. If it is deemed not to be worthy of a wiki entry then thats just my opinion vs wiki's and there is nothing i can do or say about that. As for spelling and grammar this will be corrected shortly. --N0 m3RcY 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, original research. Notability neither stated nor implied. I appreciate the article is important to you; this needs to be established in the article itself for other readers. Tychocat 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it seems as if it was very notable to the people involved but not to the public in general. Recury 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Gintor had many millions of hits and achieved cult status amongst certain circles. It was notable to people who downloaded pirated material... and today people who illegaly download software/media ARE the general public. The question is not whether Gintor is worthy of note but if the history of internet piracy is worthy of note. Believe it or not we, as internet users have a lot to thank internet piracy for. This page was created as a subentry of the warez wiki page. If you know nothing about warez in the given time period then i shouldn't think you would have heard of Gintor, however i assure you many others have. Also please note this is a work in progress. --N0 m3RcY 13:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment: Your vote doesn't count since it'd be a conflict of interest. Only Misplaced Pages administrators can vote and you you still haven't demonstrated to them that Gintor passes the WP:WEB test. -- Netsnipe 13:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Another Comment. 1. None of us are _voting_. AfDs are not decided by majority opinion. 2. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion here. An admin will close the discussion when a consensus is reached, but admins have no special priveleges on AfD. Just to clarify any mistaken impressions that Netsnipe's post may have given. Tevildo 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*nod* I stand corrected. -- Netsnipe 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is not about Gintor.com as much as it is about warez history, and therefore internet history. Considering how high profile software piracy has become, i believe that alone makes Gintor notable enough for a wiki entry. If you doubt its poularity, search for gintor on google and you will find many thousands of forum posts around the internet referencing gintor.com. Furthermore gintor established its own recognised file format which is veryfied upon following the link referenced in the article. If someone could suggest how i could improve the article instead of simply pointing out faults then im sure we can resolve this. Again, please note this is a work in progress that went up just over an hour ago, i am not trying to spam wiki, nor is the article offensive, so please if you think the article can be improved to better meet the wiki guidelines then suggest away --N0 m3RcY 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually, this article is about Gintor.com, so Gintor.com has to be notable enough to be verifiable. The only claim to notability I see here, the file format, links to a page with exactly no information about said format. Maybe this could be mentioned in some article about warez or warez groups but there's nothing here to show it merits its own article. --Nscheffey 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)