Talk:MediaFire

This article sounds like it was just copy pasted off of their website, perhaps some independent views would be in order?

Deletion

I just noticed this article was proposed for deletion, but I don't think it should be deleted, unlike it is said in the nomination, it passes WP:WEB, and in 2 requirements, when only one was required:

• The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
• The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization

It is notable, so I don't think it should be deleted... SF007 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Features

I've outright removed this section for some reasons. It reads like a press release and it borders on promoting the product instead of writing about it in a neutral way. I have no opposition for it being rewritten and restored in some way, but as it stood it was just horribly bad. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The major features and limitations are an important information for the reader, however the planned features should not be listed in detail. --X-Bert (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The list of features is a click away, presumably on the home page where MF excitely promotes what it has. Can it be rewritten at least? hbdragon88 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong or bad about the list of major features? If MF lists them in a similar form on their home page, this shouldn't be a reason to delete them here. In my opinion listing several facts is neutral. --X-Bert (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, most specifically, "No discrimination" implies a POV, that other downloaders do discriminate, and it requires a cite. Other file hosting articles, like Fileplanet and FileFront, do not list their specs. Another similar example would be video games in that we do not list the specs required to run the game since the game box does that and there are other sites that list such information. I think this type of information falls under indiscriminate information.

The only time I feelt stats are useful and encyclopedic is when it's compared to all other services, as done in One-click hosting. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"No discrimination" does not necessarily imply POV, but the word discrimination is somewhat worn-out by political correctness, so another formulation could be used. However, a cite wouldn't harm, but it's not so easy to find a good source, how about this? Since the specs of file hosters are very important for the users, I think that they should be clearly represented, especially the limitations, because on the websites of the file hosters they are often somewhat hidden and not presented on the front page (see e.g. the country limitation of Megaupload). In comparison articles the specs are of course presented, but the space in that tables is rather limited, so such a comparison could be the start for somebody who is looking for a file hoster that matches his needs, and then he can look for more details at the separate article for that file hoster. --X-Bert (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)