Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movie2k.to

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. Although not the strongest endorsement of an article AfD has ever produced, the first delete opinion was based on a vandalised version of the page that doesn't relate to the article content in its present state, while Listmeister's refutation of the other delete !vote is sufficiently convincing that only keep recommendations and neutral comments remain. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movie2k.to

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. Article shows no context. TB randley 18:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only no context, no content. It's a blank page. See no reliable secondary sources establishing notability. Fladrif (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two IP editors removed the prose content from the article. The deleted content provided the site's Alexa ranking as an assertion of notability. A GNews archives search provides several hits, but most of the articles are in German. I can't easily assess them for quality or depth of coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not appropriate to simply blank an article. I've reverted one the removals which restores the semblance of an article and the assertion of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - And weak because I'm relying on machine translation as a search for sources turns up German language sites. I'm providing links to Bing translated versions. It would be helpful for somebody with some proficiency in German to review this. I'm not even sure if this is a reliable source, but the site is the primary topic. Also this from the same site. And in no particular order, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage for movie piracy websites like this only get coverage if there have been any legal issues. There has not been any and no significant source would ever review an illegal website. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, and have someone translate the German Wikipedia version, there's lots more info there. Strongly disagree with SL93's reason for deletion on the basis of the apparent syllogism:
P1) no reliable source would cover an illegal website
P2) if it doesn't get covered it's not Notable
therefore Q) illegal websites will never be Notable enough for an article.
This logic, taken to its conclusion would produce an unnecessary system bias against reporting the darker side of the internet. We should show the Ugly as well as the Beautiful. Listmeister (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are machine translations of the two news articles cited in the German WP article (the third reference is to the company's web site): Die Welt translation & Wirtschafts Woche translation. The machine translations give an idea about the degree of the coverage (significant or not). The entire Die Welt article is about Movie2k.to. However, Movie2k.to is only mentioned in a small paragraph of the Wirtschafts Woche article.

- Of the 8 sites listed by Whpq, above, the following 5 article translations contain useful (but notable — I don't know) information (each of the following articles is entirely about Movie2k.to): 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

- Also, a translation of the German WP article won't help much since most of that content already appears on (or appeared and was removed from) the current article. The content in the German article that's not present in the English article is the "Concept" and "Legal" sections, which were mostly removed as unsourced promotional language.

- From my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (web), the relevant notability guideline, this article is right on the edge. My comments should be construed as concensus-neutral. - tucoxn\^talk 22:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.