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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of warez groups[edit]

List of warez groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Although I have removed a lot of unreferenced material, the article is still very poorly written and sourced. In the two years that it has been given to mature and develop, little has come of this opportunity and seems to be serving as a dumping ground for various non-notable and current release group hearsay. This list does not appear to add much more value than Warez groups category that it is in already. The last time I tried to remove unreferenced sections, my changes were reverted.

In summary, this article is not important for an encyclopaedia, is a breeding ground for hearsay and shows no signs of improvement despite ample opportunity.

• Keep - How many AfD's must an article survive before people stop trying to delete it? Geez. It's not listcruft. It's useful information that I have referenced before. - JNighthawk 14:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree, there is a lot of useful information here. scope_creep 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User has no contributions. Bilge [TC] 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is an out and out lie, BBilge. I'm trying to AGF, but I can't see it. User:Scope creep has *plenty* of contributions. - JNighthawk 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sorry, that was my mistake. I hit history on their user page instead of contributions. In light of my mistake I hope that you can continue to AGF. Bilge [TC] 12:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OT comment: it is missing explanation what is a "courier group". Pavel Vozenilek 15:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article should have some context added like one unfamiliar with the terminology should get a one-liner early on that tells us that the article has something to do with hacking or file swapping or some such. Not a reason to delete it, however. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never suggested that readers being unfamiliar with the topic was a reason to delete it, and neither did anyone else. The reasons for deletion are very clearly expressed and still wholly relevant. Bilge [TC] 19:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep...and for goodness sakes...GIVE UP ALREADY!!!! The article does need to be improved though. - T-75|talk|contribs 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator to delete was never in the scene and wishes to remove it. Don't you have some other page to edit or mark for deletion?
  • Comment User has no account or significant contributions. Bilge [TC] 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What does a user having few/no contributions to Wikipedia matter? This isn't a vote. Listen to the arguments on their merits. - JNighthawk 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Policy has to do with the matter. Single purpose accounts are typically afforded less weighting. This is particularly relevant since comments like "GIVE UP ALREADY!!!!" and "Nominator to delete was never in the scene" are as unobjective and poorly written as is this article. Bilge [TC] 08:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment BBilge I see you JNighthawk and others all over this page, deleting text like the group GLoW. A person who was online using MODEMS in 1996 and actually was a member of the underground scene should have way more pull than some 'elite lamer' as yourself and other pure 'deletion editors' who did not in fact contribute one morsel of data to the article and yet continue to pound others for their lack of sources. This is what is meant by the comment "Nominator to delete was never in the scene" Sad really thay you need a small paragraph of words to understand the real meaning behind a short comment as that. Realize this: these groups were on the underground not on public bulletin boards and you had to be fairly elite or actually know someone to get in. This is why it is very hard to find sources to cite for their existence. It's just foolish for you to force others do so. You are like an English major who types well, knows how to punctuate and perhaps make thinks look neat but sadly being able to do so does not make you intelligent. I could write or "code" a program with your characteristics. Much much more credibility must be given to individual authors (Like the GLoW author) who even uploaded an image. But you and others with their sense of delete chose to remove that too. The author of that image "Black Knight" knowingly used an alias and created that artwork intentionally for all to see, but someone had to have that removed too. I guess the real history of what really happened will have to exist only in the minds of those who were there at the time. I again find it laughable that you deletors choose to prune something you know nothing about. Thanks for continuing to ruin a piece of history you obviously were never a part of yet feel it is your "english major" birthright to prune.
      • Comment There's no need to be un-civil. BBilge is acting in good faith. What you're suggesting goes against Wikipedia's policies, specifically the fact that there are no/few external, credible sources, so only well-known groups can be talked about on the page. - JNighthawk 04:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Right, so take the comments on their merits. The ones you mentioned have no merit, and treat them as such. It should also be noted that WP:SPA is not policy, guideline, or anywhere near official. It is merely an essay. Wikipedia user-name policy has something to say about SPA, but that is to say to WP:AGF unless there is a known case of sockpuppetry. Either way, a little/no contribution account or an SPA (assuming no sockpuppetry) should be given the same weight as any other editor in an AfD: think about what they say, not about who they are. - JNighthawk 13:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion. The author of the article can make his/her case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin. Please bear in mind that administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion. On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous." Pretty much says it all. Judge their comments based on their merit, not on the fact that they're a little/no contribution editor. As always, pure opinion and WP:ILIKEIT have little/no merit in an AfD. - JNighthawk 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tidy. It's quite an interesting article, but needs to be policed against random nn groups. Fin©™ 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasons stated in the previous AfDs. Also, cleanup per Fin. --Myles Long 19:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article was intially a spin off from the main Warez article. Clean it up once again, remove linkspam, and we'll be fine.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since this AfD is heading straight for a unanimous keep, I'd like to take the opportunity to suggest renaming the page to List of historical warez groups and divide the groups currently listed under the Historical groups heading into appropriate categories based on the main focus of their efforts. In this way, it is avoided attempting to list current groups which are typically non notable and for which there is almost invariably no verifiable material. I would also suggest semi-protection in lieu of the various edit wars with new and unregistered users adding unreferenced material. Bilge [TC] 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure that's possible, as CLASS and FAIRLIGHT are both historically notable and still active... unless you wanted to list them twice. - JNighthawk 04:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why would they be listed twice? They would be listed once, on this page, that I propose be renamed to include only historical groups. Historical and active are not mutually exclusive as you just pointed out. The section in the page that is currently called Historical groups could be eliminated on a page that was of the same disposition and then re-organized into apporpriate categories like the ones on the rest of the page. Bilge [TC] 10:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Why would you only want historical groups? New, active groups are just as note-worthy. - JNighthawk 18:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment But as stated at the top of the nest, they are also invariably unverifiable. Also, please see the response to roy's keep. Bilge [TC] 08:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though the idea about restricting the article to the historical groups only sounds ok to me. --Methem 10:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have given no reason for keeping the article. Bilge [TC] 08:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's a list of things that seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Removing the most unreliable pieces of information and otherwise cleaning it is fine, but there's no good reason to delete the entire article. --Methem 11:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am in agreement. Bilge [TC] 11:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's the nature of the article that you have to rely on eyewitness reports and use the actual output of "releases" of the warez scenes with their mfo files to verify the claims. Only in few cases, like after a major "bust" that was covered by the mainstream media can you refer to that to further support the content. Not everybody got busted and mainstream media coverage because of it though. For the subject it covers is it relevant and the amount of activity in this area makes the subject itself notable. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only in few cases, like after a major "bust" that was covered by the mainstream media can you refer to that to further support the content. Then this is the only instance in which the group should be listed on this page in the first place. Until that point they are unverifiable and is precisely why I have suggested renaming the page to list only historical groups, because usually it is only after they are busted or disbanded that any information is ever formally published. Bilge [TC] 08:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Disagree. I believe a .nfo would be a valid source for a warez group. - JNighthawk 09:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Doesn't meet my criterion for deletion. --MichaelLinnear 07:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So in other words, you like it. Bilge [TC] 08:58, 17 June 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.