Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Cracking Force: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
keep |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*'''Keep''', notable felons. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 18:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''', notable felons. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 18:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''', noteworthy historical criminals; with effect on development of laws on software piracy, access by creative people to creative software, development of slang in the early days of the mass internet, and industrial espionage in software. |
*'''Keep''', noteworthy historical criminals; with effect on development of laws on software piracy, access by creative people to creative software, development of slang in the early days of the mass internet, and industrial espionage in software. |
||
*'''Keep''', not liking the subject matter is not grounds for deletion. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 00:17, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:17, 20 December 2004
United Cracking Force
- Was marked for speedy, but didn't meet the criterion in my opinion.
I'm not sure of our policy on whether cracking groups are encyclopedic, so this is not a vote.-gadfium (talk) 06:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC). Given that the article has been greatly expanded since I listed it here, I now vote Keep.-gadfium (talk) 21:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Why not take a look at DEViANCE and find out. Great cracking groups are just as encyclopedic as other (possibly-illegal) underground organizations such as the Mafia or anything else. "United Cracking Force", although myopic (but guaranteed), garners 3920 hits. "UCF +warez" on the other hand rakes in 10,800 hits on Google. Its worth mentioning this was VfD'd less than 10 hours after being created. Oh yeah -- keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: A list of these groups might be more appropriate. DCEdwards1966 07:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree, that would be a terribly long list. Categories are better suited for this purpose. UCF is much more notable than just a name on a list and each individual (noteworthy) group has its own story to tell. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- They all provide illegally hacked software. What more needs to be said? Comparing these groups to the Mafia is an extremely ridiculous stretch. DCEdwards1966 08:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia was full of those sorts of generalizations, it'd be a pretty small, myopic, and utterly useless source of information. What more needs to be said? —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What about this group makes them deserving of an article? Their cool logo or their "Hall of Fame" list?DCEdwards1966 09:08, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
- What about this group isn't notable — their combined 14720 google hits, their article in Heise, or the fact that they've been around for 10 years? —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- More than 10 years Christian, as I understand it we were founded in late 1993 early 1994, didnt really make an impact until around 1995-1996 tho. So thats 11 years going on 12. Alkivar 10:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What about this group isn't notable — their combined 14720 google hits, their article in Heise, or the fact that they've been around for 10 years? —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What about this group makes them deserving of an article? Their cool logo or their "Hall of Fame" list?DCEdwards1966 09:08, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia was full of those sorts of generalizations, it'd be a pretty small, myopic, and utterly useless source of information. What more needs to be said? —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- They all provide illegally hacked software. What more needs to be said? Comparing these groups to the Mafia is an extremely ridiculous stretch. DCEdwards1966 08:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree, that would be a terribly long list. Categories are better suited for this purpose. UCF is much more notable than just a name on a list and each individual (noteworthy) group has its own story to tell. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 07:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, agreeing with RaD Man. Samaritan 08:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, although I probably should abstain having been a member for 5 years. hrm why is it notable, lets see We were mentioned on CNN on 4 different occaisions. Mentioned in an article on Cracking in PC World's Alt.Net column (Cracking Up by Scott Mendham) (i have a scan of this however i dont think its fair use so i probably cant publish it :( ). Mentioned several times on German television. Heise mentioned us. Tom's Hardware mentioned us on at least 2 occaisions for cracking "uncrackable" software. Not to mention the fact that some of the most expensive debugging/testing software for systems was cracked by us. Arguably the first group to do a dongle crack (although folks from Phrozen Crew would debate that). Need I say more? Alkivar 10:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The question isn't wether we have a policy on cracking groups (no) but whether the subject is notable. It seems notable enough. (Btw absolutely not a speedy.) --Wikimol 14:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Although I'm somewhat reluctant to encourage people who are committing illegal acts for the notoriety. --LeeHunter 17:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, notable felons. Wyss 18:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, noteworthy historical criminals; with effect on development of laws on software piracy, access by creative people to creative software, development of slang in the early days of the mass internet, and industrial espionage in software.
- Keep, not liking the subject matter is not grounds for deletion. Shane King 00:17, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)