Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of illegal downloading on the film industry


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Impact of illegal downloading on the film industry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article reads like an essay that someone wrote for class. Though it is fairly well sourced, it's not well written and just strikes me as generally unencyclopedic. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

mfg, OldDeath - 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:RS. If you want to help Wikipedia, improve the article, do not rush for AfD. --Reference Desker (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article solely points out the opinion of one side of the "problem", does not follow WP:NPOV at all, reads like an advertisement against filesharing and not like an encyclopaedic article and the content is covered on many other places already. mfg, OldDeath - 12:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speepy Keep - This is clearly an encyclopedic topic. Discussion about the problem of bias within the article should happen on that talk page. If there are problems, fix them. This is the wrong venue. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment—Just for reference, we do already have articles on Legal aspects of file sharing and Trade group efforts against file sharing.—RJH (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This article seems biased to me. It looks like an essay. We have articles covering this topic already as OldDeath and RJH pointed out. Ce3c (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems like a classic example of a case study. Hartboy (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speepy Keep agree that this is a topic that deserves to be on wikipedia,and thus problems with it should focus on improving it, not getting rid of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.37.18 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)  — 86.183.37.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As already said before, the content of this article has been covered in several other places already, so the contained information is redundant in any case...
 * But surely it is relevant and useful to bring this information together in the one place? as the topic becomes more urgent, people will look for information on it, i think its obvious that this page will have to exist in some form or another —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.37.18 (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See RJH's comment above. There are already 2 articles covering the topic (and several others that do also deal with it in one or two sections). We should focus on improving them instead of creating an other redundant one on the same subject... Also, in its current form the article violates several Wikipedia rules (WP:NOTCASE, WP:NPOV, text style not encyclopaedic). mfg, OldDeath - 07:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep-The topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. The article does need some work though.Smallman12q (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, not necessarily speedy, if only for the purpose of preservation. This page is independent of the others, and not technically a content fork.  It may well be redundant to several other pages, and wants a better title.  Whether some or all of the content ought to be merged to another page, I have no opinion on; but this isn't a deletion issue. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Trade group efforts against file sharing, cutting the OR and essayizing. Else delete as essay, OR. (Typo corrected in preceding comment.)  Sandstein   06:09, 29 April 2011 (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.