Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1channel.ch


 * 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   no consensus. There is disagreement on whether the sources provided are substantial enough. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1channel.ch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This movie piracy website has no coverage in the article and I found none. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A deep search across the Internet found numerous reliable, independent sources under its former name of LetMeWatchThis generally, thus meeting WP:WEBCRIT:



Because of these reliable sources, I believe that this subject is borderline notable based on the general guideline.  TB randley  01:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are trivial mentions in the broader subject of the articles. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about the first couple sources?  TB randley  22:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are user submitted articles. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they are reliable sources from an established newspaper.  TB randley  00:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Added another source.  TB randley  00:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, article could potentially be expanded with a good deal of secondary source referenced material. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by good deal of sources? So far - two user submitted articles and two trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - So far much of the sources provided are not satisfactory (either self produced, user submitted, or trivial) which leads me to believe it fails to fulfill the general guideline requirements. Significant coverage is something that this subject seems to be lacking.-LordMaldad2000 (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:TBrandley & User:Cirt. Davey 2010   Talk  20:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Movie2k.to was recently kept at articles for deletion with similar sourcing cited in the debate.  TB randley  18:27, 14 April 2013 (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.