Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirated movie release types (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Pirated movie release types
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable except to a small subculture. Most of the explanatory content in this article is unsourced and/or reads like a guide for how to choose which torrent to download and why. Very unencyclopedic (I hate that word) tone. Lots of stuff that looks like original research. If this article is to stick around, it needs to be completely rewritten. most of the content that is actually sourced encyclopedic stuff probably belongs in the main copyright infringement or warez articles. Eris Discord | Talk 19:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - FWIW - article seems sufficiently well-presented and well-sourced - improvements to the article *always* welcome of course - incidently, 90-day stats (over 152k views) for the article => http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Pirated_movie_release_types - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep — small subculture? Are you kidding me? This stuff is wildly popular, and to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous, or severely out of the loop. Vranak (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a huge area, and one that is only growing with significant developments in law and business each month that passes. I do agree that the article needs to be fleshed out and more content added, but, I am sure that this will come simply because of the large number of people with an interest in the subject matter.  BerkeleyLaw1979    —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:ILIKEIT is not a very good argument to make in deletion discussions.  The sources in the article really don't do much, if at all, to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody said 'I like it' or anything to that effect, NinjaRobot. Bit of a straw man argument on your part I have to say. Vranak (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This is exactly the sort of information Wikipedia is good at collating and is highly encyclopaedic for the very fact that it is obscure. I'm not making an  WP:ILIKEIT assertion - I'm making a much broader one: where else would such knowledge be recorded? --gilgongo (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, if no one else is recording it, that's a pretty good indication that we shouldn't be either. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What a regrettable, let's-keep-our-heads-in-the-sand attitude you espouse. The no original research rule is an idea, a useful concept, not something ironclad that blows all other considerations out of the water. Vranak (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide useful information in an easily accessible manner. This article accomplishes exactly that with a notable subject matter while being thoroughly referenced. Biglulu (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2014 (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.