Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HNC Network

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 delete. W.marsh 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HNC Network

HNC Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Group of hackers or something that doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:V. Looks like mostly vanity and original research. Pretty much all of the "references" make no reference to the subject of the article. Only the ABCnews article even mentions the subject, and even then, only a couple times in some passing sentences. Delete as failing any reliable independent coverage. Wickethewok 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Independent Sources

The definition of reference:

(ref er ence –noun ) 1. an act or instance of referring.; 2. a mention; allusion.; 3. something for which a name or designation stands; denotation.; 4. a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc.; 5. a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.; 6. reference mark (def. 2).; 7. material contained in a footnote or bibliography, or referred to by a reference mark.; 8. use or recourse for purposes of information: a library for public reference.; 9. a person to whom one refers for testimony as to one's character, abilities, etc.; 10. a statement, usually written, as to a person's character, abilities, etc.; 11. relation, regard, or respect: all persons, without reference to age. –verb (used with object); 12. to furnish (a book, dissertation, etc.) with references: Each new volume is thoroughly referenced.; 13. to arrange (notes, data, etc.) for easy reference: Statistical data is referenced in the glossary.; 14. to refer to: to reference a file.

Being that EACH article in the references, specifically references the moniker(s) of the HNC Network and also some of those formerly involved with it, said reference is therefore verifiable and legitimate as it is relevant to the entity in which it refers, no matter how major or minor said reference is.

Now, not withstanding this article has a ways to come, but even a quick search across any major search engine offers several substantial clues to why, where and when this group existed. Let alone the group seemingly has a current effort underway at www.thereformed.org, of which the group could obviously be contacted for a first-hand account or pointers towards other verifiable content. Perhaps this is a case of someone not wishing to help in finishing the homework?

The disturbing thing is this, your lack of willingness to assist in clearing up this article's potential misgivings and your history of requests in attempting to axe many well-laid articles simply due to your impatience with those lacking MASS quantities of referencial materials. Your contribs speak for themselves, play God on another Wiki, leave this one to those that can be objective and helpful in creating a incredible Internet resource of new content while paying tribute to the heritage and of those that walked before it, such as this group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs).04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

References for articles necessary for inclusion into Wikipedia are defined differently than those on a normal dictionary. See WP:RS for more info.--TBCΦtalk? 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, has anyone attempted to explain, assist or correct the author? There seems to be no due process on Wikipedia anymore.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs).09:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia has never had due process as Wikipedia is not a democracy.--TBCΦtalk? 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject of the article hasn't been subject to "multiple non-trivial published works ". Also, "legitimate" references are not always reliable sources, especially if said references are not independent of the site itself.--TBCΦtalk? 04:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - your Delete is considerably an injustice when a site in the same category spells contains NO references and provides only a handful of external links to substantiate their presence - see l0pht . Does this not make Wikipedia a biased publishing source if it doesn't effect the rules against all offenders? .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs).09:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Due process is not a procedure relevant to just democracy, FYI. You'll also notice in the Wikipedia is not a bureacracy it states clearly:

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

Yet this has been anything but. NOONE apparently has attempted contact with the original author or the other contributors, which there seems to be a substantial few to attempt to correct this article and refine it..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs).09:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Currently, this nomination is being obscured by a lot of smoke and mirrors. Although the Anonymous Contributor's concerns about the nomination process might be valid, that's neither here not there at the moment. Consider the article itself: it makes quite a few claims, but precious little to back up most of it. The big names it attempts to associate the group with never seem to actually touch the group's own reputation - there's an implied noteworthiness, but no explicit proof of anything. Everything is described in great detail, but where's the beef? Although I hate to vote to delete an article that has obviously had a great deal of effort put into it, there's no assertion of notability that I can see. --humblefool® 05:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per humblefool. Whilst it seems to be thoroughly crafted there is, never-the-less, a distinct lack of moo. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per Humblefool. This article tries, through both its length and its "references", to imply notability, yet fails to show it. yandman 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The anon editor's horibly illogical, and unsatisfactory arguements notwithstanding, the subject does not seem to merit ANY mention in Third Party references. If specific citations can be found in several third-party references, I will change my vote. The ONLY third party citations are reprints of the SAME article from CNN and Computer World that mention a different group of white-hat hackers. The litmus test for worthiness on wikipedia is references in THIRD PARTY sources. We have none yet. Thus, I vote delete until this situation changes. --Jayron32 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• This article should not be deleted. I'm a former member of HNC and this is actually the only source of information about HNC we have now. Sure, some references are questionable, but instead if deleting this article we should rather edit it. People are references too. Do we want another incident like this one: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061106-8161.html ? Before we delete we should be able to edit this article. --xen ix 01:38 07.11.2006 (CET)

That wasn't an incident, it was the justified removal of an article on the grounds of notability. And so is this. yandman 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You get to keep the article if you can provide third-party references (as in, outside of the group itself) that talk about it, as expressly spelled out in the 2 cornerstone wikipedia policies: Policy on Verifiability, and Policy on Reliable Sources. If you cannot provide these references, than your group does not deserve an article in wikipedia. We wish you no harm or ill will, but Wikipedia is not the place for information like this. Many places exist on the web to promote your group. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Jayron32 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll bypass the blatant ignorance by my counterpart of above and move along to the bits. Taking it upon myself to contact one of the former members, since it seems noone else did, there apparently is historical, third-party articles that were indeed written(including a published book mention of the group, several interviews with NOW media, an interview with ZDNet UK, an interview with ABCNews apart from ViXeN900 and some other odd and ends), but unfortunately the archived links that were relayed via correspondence no longer hold data although their architecture is within scope of others in the same independent sites (apparently sometime between 2000-2002 many online new agencies expunged these records?). Secondly, it appears that this member had no knowledge there was an article posted on Wikipedia about the group, but upon reading it, had suggested to posssibly remove for edit and then resubmit at a later date for an article tailored to their history - he did however confirm that the timeline was incredibly accurate. He also questioned whether a full upload of all the tools to an independent external source and of course the HNC Video made in Las Vegas would help in validating any future entry? I was unsure of what to say, but I didn't think it would hurt since it was a published, commercial product produced in partnership with an independent post-production house. Thoughts?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs).11:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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.