Computer Underground Notability Test

For use on articles which are related to the computer underground, particularly those listed on VfD. This scoring system represents my personal opinion and nothing more, it is not official Wiki-policy. I will be using it in the future to ensure that my own evaluations of computer underground articles are as objective and consistent as possible.

Each "yes" answer counts as one point. (10 points maximum)

A) Is the article more than two sentences long?
B) Does the article contain at least one coherent paragraph of text (other than list items)?
C) Is the article more than 2000 bytes long?
D) Does the article contain at least three facts that are not on the following list:

The subject's proper name.

The subject's acronym (if applicable).

The subject's birth date / founding date.

The subject's website.

E) Does the article include a list of members or otherwise notable contributors?
F) Does the article include an image, such as an exemplary screenshot of a cracktro, demo, or NFO file?
G) Does the article include a list of releases or otherwise notable contributions made by the subject?
H) Does the article mention a regional or national news story which explicitly mentions the subject?
I) Besides G and H, does the article make a serious effort to establish the subjects's notability and describe some distinct things about it that distinguish it from other similar subjects?
J) Would an involved figure of said article be pleased at how knowledgeable the article was upon reading it?

Z.1) If applicable, was the person, group, or establishment subject to any sort of action such as a corporate- or government-sponsored raid, inter-agency sting operation, law enforcement investigation, or civil suit?

-OR-

Z.2) If applicable, was the person, group, or establishment the recipient of any sort of award such as a high ranking place (top 5) at a regional demoparty, online compo, or internationally recognized annual awards ceremony?

• The lighthearted acronym is intended to suggest that this should not be taken too seriously.
• The scoring system is related to my own personal agenda, as follows:
  • Stubs have no value unless they grow into articles. The contributor of a stub is issuing an open invitation to others to jump in and work on the article before the contributor gets around to working on it. But the contributor of a stub has a responsibility to work on the stub and expand it if nobody else does.
  • Stubby computer underground articles are useless because a simple Google search on the web almost always provides better and more up-to-date information.
• Stubby computer underground articles do not always provide a headstart on future articles. Someone who wants to write a decent computer underground related article is just as well off starting from zero as starting from a stubby article.
• I am personally willing to tolerate well written computer underground articles that may be considered non-notable.
• This scoring system tries to define what I think is "good enough."
• Scoring applies evenly across the board for items A through J for a maximum score of 10 points.
• A score of 11 out of 10 points is achievable if the article meets the "Z factor".
• A good article should be capable of maintaining a score of at least 4 points.
• I'm trying for a quick, easy discrimination between bad articles and acceptable articles, not a way of distinguishing fair, good and superb articles.