Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Hacker War

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great Hacker War

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability guideline - the opening paragraphs of this article recognize that the event probably didn't even happen. Also, this article is really terrible. Just read the "The truth of the matter" graf. This article could possiblybe salvaged by an enterprising Wikipedia editor with an interest in '90s hacker subculture, but it would need to be significantly curtailed to include the few objective facts about this thing. Foodlegs (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 03:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The edit history shows that this article has received the attention of multiple editors. The talk page explains that the article is sourced with the offline book, and the two offline Wired articles show wp:notability. Searching on Google books shows books in 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2015 with information in the snippets covering the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember reading about this and being interested in the matter some years ago. The statement in the lead does claim so but it has a "citation needed" next to it. The article is fairly packed with information proving otherwise. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing and may need better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 3 February 2016 (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.