Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was delete. Clearly fails notability criteria; references do not adequately support the contention of its notability. If the website gains notability in the future, we can address this question again, but for now it's not suitable for inclusion. -- ChrisO 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV Links

TV Links (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

article about a website with insufficient notability, failed speedy, prod contested by creator, and of the references he has provided, one is an article which makes a reference to TV Links along with several similar websites, although the creator seems to feel this is a valid and useful ref and has even included it in the lead, the other three are website information sites which most articles have, alexa, a mcaffe site advisor report and a Network Solutions WHOIS link Jac16888 08:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - If more people hear about this site, I won't be able to watch TV shows on demand for free anymore. Fee Fi Foe Fum 12:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You must admit, this is a rather weak reason for deletion. topher67 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a joke, son, a joke, that is. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmm. How's our coverage on streaming whole TV episodes online? That's already a major thing and growing all the time, certainly worthy of articles - legal issues, corporations acting against or jumping on the bandwagon, statements made about the strain on bandwidth and even effects on the Internet as a whole, etc - and TV Links seems to be a prominent player. Is there something we could merge to? --Kizor 16:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because article is well-organized and referenced and the site in question appears notable enough. Cheers! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually check the references, they are terrible, the first one is the only non-generic one, and it is a blog--Jac16888 08:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this site is very representative of sites in this genre. Also, as detailed in the article, this site fits into the larger history of indexing copyrighted content while not actually hosting said content. topher67 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Sources rather weak - Mostly automated, none that qualify under WP:RS, 'cept (and this is debatable) the Alexa link. No Google News hits based on the hostname. Pitiful WHOIS source. MrZaiustalk 09:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because it is referenced well and there are more non-notable things on Wikipedia that need to be deleted, this article is fine. Wwefan980 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:V and WP:RS. The cited sources in the article are not reliable sources for establishing notability. Whois? that just establishes teh existence of a domain. A google search does not reveal any reliable sources either. -- Whpq 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have updated the first reference and added a fifth. One points to a detailed blog entry profiling the site and the second points to a cnet blog entry that I got from Google News. topher67 06:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Neither of those are particularly valid references, as they are both blogs--Jac16888 15:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Going to go out on a limb here and note "Keep". All the major streaming sites of this nature are notable, and will only grow more so. Yes, CRYSTALBALL, etc., but being practical, given how *each* of these, and there aren't many, end up notable as soon as one network or studia or MPAA group attacks them... keep. • Lawrence Cohen 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - the problem is that they are not notable now. And it very speculative that they will become notable due to MPAA or studio actions as legal action is not inevitable. -- Whpq 14:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty much as Jac16888 said, nothing notable given the references in the article Alastairward 09:02, 3 October 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.