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 (speedy). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of warez groups[edit]

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

Uhhh, article issues since January two-thousand-EIGHT? I don't think so, this article is a horrible non-encyclopedic shipwreck, poorly sourced, and complete total listcruft! DELETE. JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The tags from 2008 would be relevant only if you ignore the huge revisions that page went under in October 2008, as discussed in the article's talk page, including the addition of more citations. Tags alone are not a reason to delete an article, they're an invitation to improve the article, and I feel some of the tags are deprecated when comparing versions. If you review the history, there has been a strong level of moderation on the page to keep vanity items from appearing (i.e. listcruft). Rurik (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No amount of moderation makes this list compatible with our encyclopedia. And to "Patton123" always assume good faith, thanks. JBsupreme (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Rurik and apparently bad-faith nomination.--Patton^t/c 14:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And no amount of IDONTLIKEIT makes this deletable. A number of the groups on the list have their own articles, so I have to think notability isn't an issue. Lack of sources is hardly surprising given the topic but is a reason to fix the article, not delete it. Keep. Matt Deres (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did I or anyone else say they didn't like this? Something can be listcruft, as this list is, and still be likable. It just doesn't belong here due to its unverifiable nature. Now that I read your argument, you have none. What is your reason for retaining this list again? JBsupreme (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your IDONTLIKEIT shows through in your tone, "...no amount of moderation makes this list compatible with our encyclopedia" Warez groups exist; we have articles on them. So where else does this opinion that no list of them could possibly have room in WP come from other than your dislike of them? Trim the list if you think it's too long. My reason for retaining the list simply comes from the same reason for retaining any list. See WP:LISTS if you're not familiar with the reasons for keeping lists. Matt Deres (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep how are warez groups not important? They are even responsible for large diplomatic incidents. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Violation of WP:POINT— Four (4) previous AfDs all closed as Keep.
  The nominator did not use an edit summary while adding the ((AfDM)) template to the article. [1] No edit summary was used when he revised the template to link to the 5th nomination [2] after he discovered this article had previously been nominated for VfD/AfD multiple times in the past. WP:AFDHOWTO explains this step explicitly. The edit history of the nominator's talk page shows he has been warned about this and his contribution history shows he has been on Wikipedia long enough to know better.
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for an XfD nomination and WP:BEFORE makes it quite clear AfD is not for cleanup.
  Wholesale removal of content instead of attempting to source it [3] is not in keeping with WP:PRESERVE.
  As noted in the original VfD discussion from 2005, this article was created explicitly for these warez groups where they did not have enough material to justify separate stub articles. Articles such as Operation Site Down show that this is non-trivial subject and that it is not something that is impossible to improve.
  For those interested in doing further research, these books are probably a good place to start:

• Wang, Wallace (2004-10-25). Steal this File Sharing Book (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. ISBN 978-1-59327-050-6.
• Craig, Paul; Honick, Ron (April 2005). Burnett, Mark (ed.). Software Piracy Exposed. Rockland, Massachusetts: Syngress Publishing. ISBN 978-1-932266-98-6.
• Piccard, Paul; Baskin, Brian; Edwards, Craig; Spillman, George (July 2005). Sachs, Marcus (ed.). Securing IM and P2P Applications for the Enterprise. foreword by Kevin Beaver (1st ed.). Rockland, Massachusetts: Syngress Publishing. ISBN 978-1-59749-017-7.

--Tothwolf (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Go cry someone else a river Tothwolf, this list is horribly non-encyclopedic and the verifiability issues that it has cannot be resolved through the normal editing process. The groups which are verifiable and noteworthy should be able to sustain their own articles. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for garbage like this. The books you refer to are great, and should be added into the main Warez article but have very little to do with this list. JBsupreme (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2009 (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.