Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tv-links.co.uk

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 speedy keep. The nomination fails to state a valid ground for deletion. The one commenter who mentions WP:NOT the news would be well-served (if he feels strongly enough) to write a new nomination on that ground, for one on this ground is far too flawed to succeed -- indeed, it might be considered barred by policy from succeeding. WP:NOT CENSORED, and criminals are covered under NPOV, without any hint of condoning them. (q.v. Adolf Hitler.) Xoloz 14:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tv-links.co.uk

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

With sites like these existing on Wikipedia does that basically mean Wikiepdia condones the use of these kind of sites? I understand sites like Demonoid and other BitTorrent being listed on here because to an extent, these aren't illegal but sites that freely redistribute TV shows and movies to users is highly illegal hence it's shut down and the arrest of the owner. Had the site not been deleted, it would surely have been in violation of WP:SPAM? RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 07:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Is there a rationale for deletion here? Legal or not, having an article is by no means condoning anything. Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't mean that we condone cannibalism, and Wikipedia is not censored. The only question is notability. This seems to meet that standard (though more sources would help). --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, had the site still have been up and running, it would have been classed as SPAM? Now that the site has been taken down and the owner arrested, all that exists is a dead link. Obviously there's WP:N aswell. And I already know about censorship on wikipedia :) RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 08:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Notability does not expire. The article has significant NPOV/balance problems, but it is clearly not advertising even if the site was up. Reliable sources called it a major pirate operation. Subject may be notable if claims of historic significance can be verified. • Gene93k 10:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, It's not SPAM now there's no website to link to. If anything it's a current affairs story that raises serious issues about copyright law. I think it should stay, but if you want a reason to delete it, presumably having a link to TV-Links makes Wikipedia guilty of whatever they are guilty of too, since they themselves are only providing links to copyrighted material. Kangarupert 09:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources in the article demonstrate that the site is notable. This is, in many ways, a landmark ruling in the UK, not to mention the fact it was one of the biggest sites of its kind. No way that this is spam, and there is no way that reporting it in any wat condones it. J Milburn 10:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, as soon as I saw coverage of this, I knew this was notable as it has gotten media attention. ViperSnake151 11:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Possible Keep, By no means is this advertising a site that doesn't exist anymore. All it does is allow for sensible debate about an issue that is clearly contentious. The theme of 'copyright facilitation' opens up several interesting arguments, and I would suggest, if it is decided that the page should be removed, that this case is cited in a wider copyright argument page.
  • Keep Quite a notable case of the unfolding battle between websites who infringe copyright and the authorities. David 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Both a notable website and legal case, referenced enough to be considered verifiable, IMO. •97198 talk 14:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I would say the website was notable enough in the first place given the high volume of traffic it generated. Shinigami27 14:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Speedy Keep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_keep) implies that the user thinks the nomination was based on an obvious misunderstanding and that the deletion discussion can be closed early. I'm not sure why this is being considered for deletion.... sites that freely redistribute TV shows and movies to users is highly illegal hence it's shut down and the arrest of the owner is incorrect: the site did not distribute or store any media material, but did provide links to sites which require their users to only post material not in breach of the law in the country of that site. As such it is entirely possible that no law was broken. 1 It is a notable case of the ongoing actions of F.A.C.T. and how such orgs interact with the internet and the tactics they use to control copywrited information and media 2 It is referenced by reliable sources and is notable enough to be in a national newspaper 3 If the arrested individual is convicted it has deep and wide implications for the entire internet in the UK as 'copyright facilitation' could potentially mean any search engine, directory or site that links to another is illegal (and therefore wikipedia and the internet as it currently exits is itself possibly illegal). --ASH1977LAW 15:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Wikipedia has an article on Murder and rape. Does that mean that Wikipedia condones that? No, of course not.dposse 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Links Will (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep Kenjoshii [chat] 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep It got plenty of media coverage. Jason Garrick 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong KeepI don't see any reason to delete this, as it is chronicling an important event in web rights. Also, as it was widely used, it's less of a candidate for deletion than some of the myriad of crazy articles on this site. Just my 2 cents.71.114.76.226 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep This decision will most likely prove to be as landmark of a copyright infringement decsion for the UK as was the Napster ordeal in America. The article raises strong points relevant to current debates concerning copyrights. By looking at the number of unique contributers today alone, this website is clearly notable and should be kept. Jason Smith 02:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep This has to say, even if the site itself was illegal, this page explains the concept and why it shut down. Controlled substances have their own pages on wikipedia, why not infringements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.212.197 (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, the presence of an article on a subject does not constitute an endorsement of the subject provided the article is neutrally written. Otherwise we'd have to delete The Holocaust. Hut 8.5 12:40, 24 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.