Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tv-links.co.uk (2nd)

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 keep. John254 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tv-links.co.uk

Tv-links.co.uk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article deleted at AFD two weeks ago - the only thing different is that it was shut down, therefore it violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a news service. Will ^(talk) 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

→ Note: Tv-links.co.uk was moved to TV Links (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete - once legal action has been taken then it may be of value if some precedence is set else it serves no purpose on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.179.184 (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - now that the owner has been arrested and is awaiting charges, this may turn into a bigger story than it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatRedShark (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - if it was afd'd two weeks ago and the only thing to have happened is that it's closed then this qualifies for Speedy (as far as I can see). If it was deemed not to be notable when it was open then surely it can't be notable now that it isn't open. B1atv 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I would agree, since both articles are pretty similar, but given the latest news, I think it's best to let this AfD run its course. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, its closure was reported worldwide, ergo notable. It was snowball kept a few hours ago. Speciate 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Admins, this should be closed and maybe taken to AfD review. Speciate 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the closer's extended closing rationale? It wasn't snowball kept, it was speedy kept. There is nothing barring me (and I was even suggested) from opening a new AFD. Will ^(talk) 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for the last AfD was weak, and it did show any real failure to meet Wikipedia policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep as potentially important legal precedent under common law. Tag as a stub, improve, and find cites, but keep. Bearian 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  "Potentially" is in violation of WP:ATA#CRYSTAL :) Will ^(talk) 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This page contains information that people want to know about and so is useful information. may need improving but definatly not deleting Mikyt90 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - there are numerous legal ramifications surrounding this issue. Mindraker 20:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  I'd have to cite WP:ATA#CRYSTAL as well. Perhaps it would have been best to start this AfD in a few weeks, when the legal details are all settled. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Good, then we can close this AfD, and you can restart a new AfD in a few weeks, if necessary. Mindraker 10:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have to call keep here. It's not so much the potential issues surrounding it, it's that it's gained the notability from increased press. Yeah, I could be engaging in the much loathed crystalballery in that saying that there are probably more links coming, but considering the issues surrounding this, it's getting quite a bit of attention. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • On second thought, to augment, I agree with Speciate - let's close this and take it to DRV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The article has not been deleted. Why would you take it to DRV? Note that the previous AfD result (using a totally different rationale) was keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Good question. DRV is for review of AFDs. Not necessarily articles that have been deleted, but if one doesn't think that an article should have been kept, it really should wind up at WP:DRV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        • In this particular case, though, a DRV overturning of the SNOW closure of the first AfD would simply return the issue to AfD, most probably, in view of subsequent developments on which an AfD discussion might be expected to focus, to this particular discussion. I love process as much as anyone, but the effect of overturning the SNOW closure would be essentially nil (it would, of course, relieve us of having to discuss process issues here, but I imagine that we might dismiss straightaway any concerns about the propriety of our revisiting the issue and focus on substantive concerns). Joe 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Well put, I didn't consider that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP, This article was already nominated for deletion, and the result was speedy keep!!! THIS WAS YESTERDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.43.143 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone said "speedy keep" because the deletion rationale was invalid. This AfD was created under a different rationale. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Prior to its shutdown it was the 26th most popular site in the UK, beating Rightmove.co.uk and sky.com. Speciate 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexa rankings only sample a subset of the population, not the entire population. Will ^(talk) 00:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As does the Nielsen ratings. So? Speciate 00:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Nielsen ratings have a much more rigid system than Alexa, allowing their extrapolation to be much more reliable. Nielsen randomly sample TV families. Alexa's is just a toolbar anyone can install. Will ^(talk) 00:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexa is quite limited. You can easily rig your site's ranking by getting a few dozen friends to access your site a number of times per day. You can't do that with Nielsen ratings. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do explain away the Guardian calling it a major piracy site, and its 423,000 ghits? Speciate 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP This site was one of the largest sources of free content provided by random links. If deleted, allow a future article after all court cases are settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.38.23 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This recent wave of media from reliable sources at least cements the article as being able to satisfy the WP:V and WP:RS complaints that were leveled against the article last time. Argue with Alexa if you like, but it is a well-known site and, again, with the recent coverage, satisfies web notability criteria one. SorryGuy 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This website was very well known and used regardless of Alexa's statistics. They've been trying to shut this thing down for a long time. Mynabird 07:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The main complaint from two weeks ago was lack of citation at notable sites. It is now all over the news. This is a landmark case (IMHO) in regards to the legal implications of just linking to copyrighted media. topher67 08:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If 0.4% of global users were accessing this site, it's definately notable. Even the most skewed of alexa ratings wouldn't boost a site from "some people visit it" to "1 out of every 250 people online used it". This is ignoring the potential legal ramifications and ongoing nature of related newsworthy events. Prgrmr@wrk 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I specifically searched wikipedia for this. Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per SorryGuy. It is on par with The Pirate Bay and Napster for notability. Mdmkolbe 22:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Fufils notability in every way, and whilst this is a current event it is not a news article but an encyclopedia entry. --ASH1977LAW 22:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to a relevant article on piracy. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/Question - people are referring to the last afd as "speedy keep" - what about this one? B1atv 06:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I stated above that WP:CSD#G4 could apply, but given that the previous form of the article did not include the legal issues and arrest of the owner, then this AfD should probably run its course. Most of the newfound notability on the website comes from the events of recent days. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - TV-Links was an amazing website that deserves to be on Wiki. People have a right to know about this website and how the government reacted to it. People sould also know how its creator was able to show TV related media without actually keeping any of it on the server. This fact should prevent the creator from being charged. Anyways, TV-Links was a very useful site since it allowed people to view missed TV shows or movies on other sites without having to google search for them. --Kamikaze 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornix 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If you are indeed Kamikaze (talk · contribs), could you please log in and confirm this by signing the page? Nishkid64 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It was deleted with a note that there's no reason not to recreate if suitable, available sourcing increases - which is the usual practice - and since then, it got stuff like articles in The Guardian. --Kizor 04:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This site has a lot of significance regarding the current copyright debate. Can the MPAA sue someone for linking? It's also very possible that the site will be restarted at a different URL or in a different country. Wikilost 05:13, 28 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.