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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 17:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of warez groups[edit]

List of warez groups was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-15. The result of the discussion was no consensus, defaulting to keep, and sending the article to cleanup. For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of warez groups/2005-07-15.

Article serves no real purpose other than to enable illegal filesharing; I believe there is precedent for deleting articles which promote illegal activity. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 11:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Also WP:NOT a repository of links. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 19:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This has been discussed before i think. It doesnt enable illegal filesharing as it doesnt (or at least shouldnt) tell you how to access illegal material. It simply lists groups which have had an effect on the scene or indeed the world, but which may not be big enough for their own article. --Jeffthejiff | Talk 12:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunate keep. paul klenk ^talk
• strong keep, but any direct links to copyrighted material should be culled. Otherwise, I don't see how this promotes or enables illegal filesharing. — brighterorange (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I see no need to promote illegal activity Jwissick 17:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I see no reason to censor wikipedia as per WP:NOT. The content itself is not illegal in Florida. Roodog2k (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not worried about the legality issue, but how are we to keep this page NPOV and notable? Most of these groups consist of just a few members. You can already see how there are some groups added that aren't as notable as the others. And how would we define "notability" anyway, considering it's unlikely that someone participating in one of these groups would be willing to fairly police this page? --Quintin3265 19:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Strong Delete. This page continues to deteriorate. Let's put it out of its misery. --Quintin3265 15:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Illegality is irrelevant here, but individual warez groups are simply not notable. The nomination and some of the votes above are therefore beside the point.Martg76 19:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notibilty is not a requirement, and is extremely subjective that since you haven't heard of something that it must mean it's not important or worthy of an article. --ShaunMacPherson 20:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Warez groups purportedly cost corporations billions of dollars in lost revenue, this makes them notable. They are purposely fractured, factional, and small; this is the established m.o. in this field. While listing them might potentially help those looking for illegal files, it also aids authorities in identifying and apprehending these groups. Either way: this list is not illegal, it is unique to WP, and is of considerable worth to those researching such an obscure (yet ubiquitous) subject. Anetode 22:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, maybe. I think the types of listed groups should be restricted to just those of historical value. I mean in reality there have been 1,000s of groups over the years that no one remembers and probably no one cares about. And probably many of the groups alive today will be long forgotten after a few years. At least if you keep the list limited to established historical names (who were big or well known during their time) and move it away from being current, then you have a justification for removing random additions by kids who are just using Wikipedia for their own self promotion and ego. --Ipggi 22:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if some of you people would help me patrol it for utter crap adds... I've cleaned this up 6 TIMES!!!! i keep getting reverted by anons who add links to sites, links to irc, site names, member names, and other shit which DOES NOT BELONG. This could be a useful list... but it keeps getting ruined repeatedly.  ALKIVAR™ 00:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no more encourages illegal activity than murder or arson or Patrick Duffy. Besides, it's a valuable link library for me to get madd serialz & crax. Lord Bob 00:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. I can't imagine someone looking for these groups now, at least for informational purposes, let alone in ten years. -- Kjkolb 00:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is encyclopedic, and doesn't enable illegal file sharing. -GregAsche (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, so long as only demonstrably notable groups are included. No more promotes illegal activity than List of assassins. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Warez groups are per definition non-notable or they'd get shut down. Those who don't pirate software don't care one bit about the few, very obscure groups that do and those who do engage in software piracy aren't going to look this up because they want to learn more about it. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't use lists genrally, but have found a few very usefull, this might be to others. Alf ^melmac 08:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it's been discussed before, and my vote still remains "nuke it 'til it glows", aka delete. --Calton | Talk 04:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep relevant for Warez related articles. Piecraft 15:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to current policy. Reasons given above are requests for censorship - Wikipedia doesn't do that, unless the article itself would be against the law. ··gracefool |☺ 15:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepthe argument that it encourages piracy doesn't hold up. Secretlondon 22:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as this article has been significantly reworked since it was originally nominated for deletion and is evidently an extension of the Warez parent article. This is a NPOV list of organisations which are notable for software piracy, not an article which condones or somehow promotes piracy. Wikipedia holds articles for Kazaa, eDonkey network, and LimeWire, as well as The Pirate Bay and Suprnova.org. Is it your opinion that these articles encourage and enable piracy as well, thus they should be deleted? Hall Monitor 16:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. See last discussion. I thing re-VfDing in a short time is rude. --Avatar-en 06:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep - listings of school massacres dont promote mass murder either IMHO. // Gargaj 18:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No good reason has been given for removal, and this was already subject to an AfD vote (which resolved in "keep") —Zootm 16:43, 29 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.