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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of warez groups[edit]

Most of this article will never be able to meet policy on Verifiability or no original research. Notability of many of the groups listed can't be proven, and the nature of the article makes it a magnet for vanity, unsourced statements, and vandalism. Furthermore, several points of What wikipedia is not appear to apply. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per my nom - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I assisted her with this nomination. See also my prod tag. — Werdna talk criticism 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the valid points made by multiple keep voters in the last nomination. If needed, all unsourced entries can be commented out. Prolog 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - original nomination here Yomangani^talk
• Delete - stupid listcruft. Though I will note that the supposed "legal concerns" cited in previous AfD's struck me as sort of stupid as well. The ever-so-important and fascinating info about each warez group is mostly not verifiable (plus nobody cares), though I will grant that it's not really a problem to verify that the groups exist, as some people claimed in previous AfDs. Tangentially, only a small minority of warez groups will ever earn their own articles, e.g. DrinkOrDie. As an organizational method, I would be more than satisfied with seeing all the genuinely notable warez groups inside the Warez Groups category. I think that works just fine, no need for a list. My Alt Account 10:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, many of the entries on the list are considered notable enough to have articles of their own, so their status should be verifiable enough to keep on here. Being a magnet for vanity, unsourced statements, and vandalism isn't a criteria for deletion--otherwise we'd delete George W. Bush for all the vandalism he gets. Prune, cleanup, but don't delete a useful index for the sake of vandals. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alt account, a list provides a nice one-line summary that a category cannot: replacing a list like this with a category loses useful information. Also, to the nom, just what criteria on WP:NOT do you think this is violating? Vaguely asserting that it violates one without specifying which isn't a valid reason to delete. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria that I feel this list violates are:

1.8 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

1.7 Wikipedia is not a directory

- Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It discriminates. All these groups are warez groups and if it's properly cleaned up, they're going to be only that minority that recieves third-party coverage of their activities.
  • It's not original, all of these groups have been identified as warez groups in other sources.
  • This article doesn't contain directory information, like web page links or phone numbers, just encyclopedic description of the groups. Your objections are baseless. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in this case, the list is superior to a caregory, as it has the option to hold entries that would not make any more than a stub article. It also escapes tha major list problem, since many of the groups are defunct and the rate of new ones does not make it an "unlimited and unmaintainable list". Ace of Risk 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't notable enough to have more than a stub written about them, then why are they notable enough to include at all? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Add warnings on how quickly this info changes and about problems with verification. Clean it up visually - it is pretty lousy in style. Pavel Vozenilek 23:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR and WP:V don't go away when they are inconvienient. Any material carrying a warning about verifiability can and should be removed on site. We can only add or keep information that has been verified by reliable outside sources. Regardless of the outcome of the AFD, any material on that page that can't be verified can't be kept, per policies on no original research and verifiability. As far as I can tell at least 3/4 of the material there is unverifiable, and simply due to the nature of the subject, will never be. Whats left, if there is anything, may be better off as a category, or merged back into Warez, if we even want to keep it at all. Given how much of the article can't be verified, AFD made more sense. If you really think the article should be saved, then I'd strongly suggest you start finding sources for its content, as a Keep outcome won't stop WP:V and WP:NOR from being applied to every single statement and claimed fact in that article. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Listcruft, unmaintainable, unverifiable, vanity, and every single one of these groups is inherently non-notable. KleenupKrew 02:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of these groups have recieved extensive media coverage and been the targets of international criminal investigations that were front-page news. How is that non-notable? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original reserach, unsourced, non-notable cruft hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this mass of WP:OR. Sandstein 05:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up; remove all red links lacking in sources; this list has many advantages over categories. Yamaguchi先生 23:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just like the last two times... clean it up instead.  ALKIVAR™ 00:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the list is useful and most groups are verifiable, send it to cleanup instead of AfD. bbx 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 04:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the info is true though maybe a little outdated but still useful info --Unregistered--

• Given that the cleanup recomended by the previous AFD didn't happen, how about we leave this for 30 days, see if the article can be redeemed in that time, and if not, we'll be having this discussion again in a month or so - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please many articles are vandalized but that is no reason for erasing them Yuckfoo 21:41, 21 September 2006 (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.