Deletion of Gpirate

Comment: The article on torrentfreak.com about torrent searches in general Gpirate is mentioned, the article, however the article is not specifically about Gpirate (also notwithstanding , the only other site in the article that has a wikipedia page is YouTorrent).  That doesn't counts as significant coverage that can be used to establish notability.  As for the About.com references, again another references in passing (giving it special mention in their list of the top 35 torrnet sites, but it didn't actually make their list of top 35
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: Fails ; obvious |COI issues; article makes grandiose, blustery statements (''"Gpirate discovers all the tv shows from around the world"'') and uses |peacock terms
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:COI||WP:PEACOCK)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: the three main editors of Gpirate appear to be |SPAs and I wouldn't be surprised if they are |the same person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Klingali, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jinjajames, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikisudia &nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:SOCK)

Comment: Fails ,  is not a reason to keep. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Poor article and I wouldn't weep to see it go, but Gpirate achieves adequate notability through mentions on torrentfreak (one of the best  for this topic) and even the usually glacially moving about.com. If ''they've'' noted it, it's established enough even for WP. Half the current article content ought to be pruned though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: veering to '''Weak keep''' ''if'' de-spammed and de-|peacocked - much more like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gpirate&oldid=265116004 LinguistAtLarge's version. The SPA enthusiasts are their own worst enemies if they insist on the unencyclopedic promotional tone and undo changes that remove it. Guys, ''if'' the article stays, understand that you will not |OWN it and will have to allow others to edit it to comply with Wikipedia's normal standards such as |neutral point of view
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:PEACOCK||WP:OWN||WP:NPOV)