Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARADOX (warez) (2nd nomination)

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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:24Z

[edit] PARADOX (warez)

PARADOX (warez) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No assertion of notability per the guidelines. A couple of nfos and a short bio compiled by some unknown individual doesn't make an article. Needs some evidence of non-trivial coverage by a reliable source.--Crossmr 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no polite way to say this, so I'll just say it. You're obviously too young to remember the composition, timeline, impact and effects of the cracking scene ca. 1985-1995, and you have no idea what the giants whose shoulders you are standing on were up to in their heyday (and they or their successors apparently still are to an extent). I'm having a hard time to refrain from throwing words like "trigger-happy" and "complete ignorance" around. I wish people didn't have such short attention spans and would pay more attention to history, including the history of the IT industry. Also, don't confuse legality with notability. 86.56.48.12 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Its got nothing to do with legality. Wikipedia requires citation to establish notability and it hasn't been provied. Also read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA while you're at it.--Crossmr 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: The subject of argument is not that PARADOX exists, how long they have existed, nor how credible they are, but the argument for deletion is that NO CREDIBLE SOURCES can be provided to PROVE the groups notability.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syberwolff (talk • contribs).

IMHO the above is a strawman argument. In an AFD, credible (established & verifiable) sources are a tool to establish the article subjects's notability/credibility. Articles on notable subjects are kept (and subsequently improved where necessary). Articles on non-notable subjects are deleted. Once the balance of evidence indicates that a subject is indeed notable, an article is kept. The above note implies that because of a perceived lack of established mainstream sources, the article should face deletion irrespective of its subject's (implicitly conceded) notability. That turns things on its head. Established sources are the means towards the end, not an end in themselves. Granted, established sources are almost always a better tool to establish notability than other, inherently less powerful indicators. (Such less powerful indicators that have been used in AFDs include ample circumstantial evidence, abundant less well established sources, obviousness/common knowledge/accepted wisdom, expert testimony [eg. "I am a marine biologist and I can confirm..."] etc.). But the purpose of an AFD is not to prove disputed individual assertions within an article, it is only to determine whether the subject of an article does or does not deserve an article; ie. whether it is notable. 86.56.48.12 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yo. Paradox is pretty important as they have released a major crack for windows vista which is comparable to the "devils own" cd key for windows XP. I have a feeling that people will refer to the crack as the paradox crack. thanks - n84—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.184.30.18 (talk • contribs) 06:56, March 4, 2007.

"Yo," This has already been mentioned several times in the article and has been stated that while it proves they have done something notable there are no viable sources other than blogs etc.Syberwolff 17:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My counterargument is the same as to your above note. You concede that notability (of the group's activity) is proven. See my above comment. 86.56.48.12 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article serves it's purpose, it informs people who don't know what the warez group Paradox is as to what it is... I mean come on it's a warez group.. it can't really have much other than what it has it's not like their going to list the name and address of all of their members and what software they've cracked when etc. etc... Syberwolff 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats kind of the issue. In order for content to exist here there has to be an assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or every warez group, high school club, or otherwise would have an article here.--Crossmr 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Unidentified user please calm down this is a civil discussion. Crossmr: Personally I would assume that "It was founded in 1990" and the vast variety of consoles would lend itself to their notability but if not I could do some research and find some. The only thing I ask is, and I don't know if you did this before-hand because I just looked at the article out of curiosity for the first time, but to mark it as needing varification, or as a stub or something (I'm still new on Wikipedia) instead of marking it for deletion. I believe every informative article should be welcome on Wikipedia as someone may be looking for information on Paradox and this is a good source (perhaps with a little more information, a great source.) And Vironex, he's saying that the article needs more sources citing how elaborate, and more evidence of how popular the group is.Syberwolff 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Because wikipedia has a threshold for inclusion and articles which do not meet that threshold get removed. So far the comments have been in the same vein as the article. A bunch of claims that this is a notable topic, yet nothing to back it up. --Crossmr 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wow, what the heck is the use of wikipedia if you can't get information on groups like Paradox? Crossmr, do your homework!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.74.86.5 (talk • contribs) 21:48, March 3, 2007.
  • I'm not required to do any homework here. The article fails to establish the notability of the group with any references from reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Regardless of how big and important the group may be to the warez scene if that can't be verified it doesn't count for much on wikipedia.--Crossmr 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Paradox is a pretty elaborate group. How exactly will anyone benefit from deleting this article? I think it'd be stupid not to have this article. I'll try to find some sources, so everybody wins. :) --Vironex 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a web group with attitude. What makes them more than that? Should they be anything more than a mention within Warez? (And anon IPs with attitude really don't help) Shenme 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, they are notable for producing a crack for Vista that verifies the copy as genuine, allowing one to receive automatic updates. No other group to date has accomplished this feat, and it may also be impossible to "fix" given the nature of the crack. The following article describes this process, but does not directly contain content that violates copyright law. Link to article is here: http://www.uploadcrap.com/?subaction=showcomments&id=1172962283&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.161.84.80 (talk • contribs) 22:00, March 3, 2007.
    • Above user: Yes that does describe their RECENT popularity but it says nothing of past feats and past popularity.Syberwolff 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thats a blog that is not a reliable source per wikipedia's standards.--Crossmr 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't a blog, but a news site, http://www.uploadcrap.com/blog/ would be a blog. --Vironex 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't need blog in the url to be a blog. Look at it, "Posted on 03 Mar 2007 by rjodwyer" and it has a comments seciton. That is a blog.--Crossmr 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with Crossmr, That is indeed a blog. Syberwolff 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
        • So I suppose Digg.com is a blog by your definition. I disagree. --Vironex 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
          • It has a similar format for posting stories. Digg isn't useful as a citation either. The fact of the matter is, this is presented in a blog format, and we have no idea who richard is, or why his site should be considered a verifiable source of information on this. There is no assertion of editorial oversight either. Whether he wants to call it something other than a blog, or you do, there is no evidence that this site would be useful as news source.--Crossmr 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think that its starting to come out nicely, there are a few credible sources and a few... other sources.. and the organization is coming along more. I'm trying to help out and I'm learning a lot about editing.Syberwolff 09:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article should be removed, not due to the fact that the information in the article is questionable at best I mean we don't edit out information about Nazis but there is no context to the article. While it is informational I don't believe there is enough static data to call this a true article. At most this entry is a suburb which can be listed under Warez.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.55.26 (talk • contribs) 22:05, March 3, 2007.
• Keep. (see below) The article is gaining citations. As I previously stated, this is a very elaborate group and it makes sense to have a Wikipedia article about them. --Vironex 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I already pointed out, thats a blog and not a valid citation so it hasn't gained anything.--Crossmr 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I would support merging it into the Warez article as a category(Is this right? Like I said: New) and having Paradox(warez) redirect there. Eventually if enough information is collected in that section then maybe give it it's own article Syberwolff 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This team is noteworthy. They are one of the oldest cracking groups, and deserve recognition as such. This is a good historical text, and I would be disappointed to see it disappear. --HaDAk 12:21, 4 March 2007 (EST)
  • Provide the evidence then. Wikipedia requires citation.--Crossmr 05:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • On their website they have cracked software avaliable from back to 1998, I'll provide a link momentarily. While this doesn't provide any notation of them being popular it does prove they are one of the oldest groups.http://www.paradogs.com/pdx_rels.htm - Dec 98 is the earliest.Syberwolff 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately age isn't the issue. The problem is notability, not longevity. They can be an old group without being notable.--Crossmr 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I understand that but you were asking him to provide evidence of the longevity as was my understanding. Going back to my earlier comment would you support merging it with Warez as a category?Syberwolff 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
          • As long as any merged information was verifiable yes.--Crossmr 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't know what kinds of sources are verifiable and I don't know how to go about finding such information and I doubt that there is much seeing as it's a warez group. But that sounds like a fair compromise to me.Syberwolff 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Start with these two pages, they should give you lots of information on how to start figuring out what is and isn't a good source: WP:V and WP:ATT.--Crossmr 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete None of the three refs even come close to WP standards for verifiability.--Djrobgordon 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Crossmr is right, this article's citations are weak and not reliable. However, this team does deserve some mention, perhaps on the Warez page. I think a "Well-known warez groups" or some such section would be an appropriate placement, and this page could just redirect there. --Vironex 06:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Frankly I think their relevence has just been proven by the Vista issue; which has been reported by several sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.93.206 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-04 06:48:25 (UTC)
• Wow. This article even comes with an editorial about the deletion policy and an editorial about free speech. Now, before I cast my !vote, lemme tell you a little something about the free speech provisions of the first amendment to the United States Constitution: THEY ONLY APPLY TO CONGRESS. The amendment says that Congress shall not make laws abridging the freedom of press/speech/et cetera, and Wikipedia is not congress - ergo, this doesn't apply. In otherwords, there is no way that Wikipedia can even remotely possibly violate your constitutional rights to freedom of speech. It's simply impossible. Don't believe me? Look it up and read the whole thing. If you want to say something about this group and have your freedom, use your l33t skillz and get your own server. So that said, Delete - for a lack of notability. The editorials don't help a damn. --Dennisthe2 07:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Where the heck was free speech mentioned at all? And you go off on a tangent like you're going to say you want to keep it and then go and say the same thing thats been said over and over... Could you atleast have skipped the little temper tantrum?Syberwolff 07:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It was mentioned here and then again here. Accusing other editors of having temper tantrums is not civil discourse. Please stop. Uncle G 11:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - does not provide reliable sources which either support or assert notability. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:ATT. --Haemo 07:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - No doubt this is a big time warez group. They have been around for years across many consoles and the PC. You can find easily find many refernces to them all over the net and everyone in the warez scene has heard of them. The article could use some cleanup and improvement but no way is this a delete. - Arch NME 08:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If usable source are so easy to find, could you please provide links to a couple of them?--Djrobgordon 08:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I did just that, added three refs, especially look at the demo archive on pouet that is proof positive evidence that they have been around since 1990. - Arch NME 08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I just did some major editing to this, obviously I think this is a Keep. Pjbflynn 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's still a significant sourcing problem. I wouldn't call afterdawn.com a reliable source, since the linked news item is user-submitted and unreferenced.--Djrobgordon 08:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm curious as to why the example images were deleted......Syberwolff 08:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And your basis for that opinion? This is not a vote so please clarify why you think this article should be kept.--Crossmr 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, looks pretty notable to me. A cracking group that's been around 17 years and has cracked over a half dozen consoles as well as (apparently) Vista? If not that, then what sort of cracking group would be notable? There are also several secondary sources already linked in the article. Bryan Derksen 08:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to a notability guideline for cracking groups? Otherwise we need some reliable sources to establish their notability.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Repeating your request for "reliable sources" in response to every single keep comment is not particularly helpful or useful. In this case, we have reliable sources that establish the existence, age, and some of the accomplishments of the group, and any notability guideline that would omit a 17-year-old cracking group that's done as much as this one appears to have done is a guideline in serious need of repair or ignoring. Not that I've seen anyone cite an applicable specialized notability guideline to begin with, for that matter. Bryan Derksen 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable, especially since cracking Vista. Needs work though. 83.245.19.172 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Provide sources for establishing the notability.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Very notable group - what is it with people nominating articled for deletion just because they're not familiar with the subject matter? RichardJohn 10:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL. If they're notable provide sources to establish it.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Paradox (and their ilk) are an important part of the history of the internet. While obtaining traditional references for their activity is, due to the very nature of their activities, very difficult, their social and economic impact is very real LochVoil 12:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability. If it can't be sourced, it can't be on wikipedia.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notable Group. They have been around for over a decade, and have had quite an impact on warez, and anti-piracy programs. Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 13:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Then source it. Wikipedia is based on verifiability.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep They've just now cracked Vista, which all major tech news sites will pick up on. Deleting it now would just mean we'd have to recreate it. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 14:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're speculating that they will pick up on? Because if they had, then there would be some reliable sources, which still haven't been provided.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well at least the inquirer has --froth^T 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, I'm happy to see this debate kept going after I went to sleep. Here's my quick analysis of the new sources:
  • Scenery: History of Paradox, old and new: An article of unclear authorship which, at best, proves this group exists.
  • Paradox releases first warez for Nintendo Wii A news article with no author credit, and of unclear origin. The "Site Info" page claims they use both Wikipedia and Answers.com as primary news sources, which wouldn't make the very dependable, and would run the risk of indirectly verifying a WP article through another WP article.
  • Paradox PS3 loader confirmed This site's news articles are user submitted, and the editorial process, if any, is unclear. The focus of this article is the rumor of a hack which may or may not have been achieved.
  • Article covering crack of Windows Vista I've already covered this one above, but briefly, news is user submitted, and or unclear origin.
  • http://alien.untergrund.net/ I can't figure out what this is, or what it's supposed to prove.
  • Article about Subcultures that mentions PARADOX as significant member of the demo scene Contains one trivial mention of PARADOX, at most proving they exist. This appears to be a translation of a self-published e-book.
  • Paradox member arrested in New York State This is a legitimate source, a Washington Post article about one of the group's members being arrested. It has non-trivial coverage of PARADOX. I don't believe this single source justifies the existence of this article, but it's a start. Anyone voting to keep should keep in mind that this is the only usable source that's been found, and that any information kept must be confirmed therein. What's left would barely be a stub.--Djrobgordon 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a fair assessment, though a 17 year old article is pretty hard to hang your hat on.--Crossmr 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Does age lessen notability? A lot of people are "hanging their hats on" a motley collection of articles that are 2000 years old (some older, some younger). Also, let's not confuse verifiability with notability. God for instance is not verifiable, but certainly notable. If you want to stick to your argumentum ad ignorantiam, be consistent and nominate God for deletion. 86.56.48.12 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:ILIKEIT for a list of arguments to avoid - which includes attempting to set precedent by nonsequitur. Further, if you think that the article for God should be removed, please, go ahead and just try to prove a point. --Dennisthe2 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Any attentive reader will realise that I have no intention to AFD the God article. I don't subscribe to that kind of logic. I was making the point that if others subscribe to it, they should apply it consistently, not selectively (which would easily expose just how tenable their position is). 86.56.48.12 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the links are referring to something in the article, they are not specifically to prove notability but to show validity or and external link about something in the article. Syberwolff 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that almost none of the sources are usable, and the one that is, in my mind, does not prove notability or justify this article's existence.--Djrobgordon 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Djrobgordon wrote:

``Paradox member arrested in New York State This is a legitimate source, a Washington Post article about one of the group's members being arrested. It has non-trivial coverage of PARADOX. I don't believe this single source justifies the existence of this article, (...)``

Why not? (Especially in conjunction with the other circumstantial evidence in the form of non-mainstream webpages?) A LOT of Wikipedia articles are significantly less well sourced. As far as I see it, the non-verifiable sources claim a record and the Washington Post article corroborates their claims. 86.56.48.12 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete from the above assessment of the sources. Notability aside, an article has to meet attributability standards first and foremost. There aren't enough reliable sources about the subject here to create a thorough, neutral article. Even in the reliable article, this is all that's mentioned: "Paradox" which pirates software as soon as it is released and distributes it to its members. Paradox's members are located, among other places, in Long Island, Chicago, France and Denmark.. --Wafulz 17:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the standards you are trying to hold this article to are practically unreasonable. The mainstream tech media isn't going to hand out props to the guys fucking their sponsors. This article has gone from an F- to an A in terms of quality since this afd thread started. Every article in the Warez groups category [1] would be deleted by your logic, seriously go take a look at all of them. I'm done messing with this thing but I think it will be a shame if you delete it now. We are talking about deletion here not making featured article status. - Arch NME 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I completly agree, I think we have put together a quality article with information about what the group does, who started it, what they do, examples of what they do, and several outside resources which would make this an informative article. The underground cannot have 'viable sources' otherwise it would not be.. underground.. the whole goal of the underground is fame in infamy with anonymity.Syberwolff 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment One of Wikipedia's inherent biases, which I don't have a ready solution for, is that groups which operate far enough outside the mainstream that the legitimate press either can't or doesn't cover them, are at an inherent disadvantage. However, that doesn't change the fact that all information on this site must be verified. There's plenty of useful material out there that is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. After all, this is an encyclopeida, not the aggregate of all human knowledge. If this group is written about later, they can have an article then. Groups like Skull and Bones existed for decades before there would have been enough good info or media coverage to write a Wikipedia article about them.--Djrobgordon 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Skull and bones couldn't have had an article because no one knew much of anything about them. Go look at the eternal links at the bottom of the page, look at all the demos on pouet, look at the releases on enforce. This is a significant body of work. These are the legit sources of the scene. Skull and bones didn't go around tagging everything they put there hands on, warez groups do. These tags have been documented by third party sources and referneced in the article. -Arch NME 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All sources are not reliable source. Would you disagree with my assessments above of any of them? And, per your question, I think almost all of the warez articles are of dubious notability and verifiability, but I'm not going to AfD them all just to prove that point.--Djrobgordon 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the wikipedia policys are set in stone and I would remind you that this is not a bureaucracy and we can basically use our collective judgement and common sense to do whatever we feel is the correct course of action. That is the solution to inherent bias. - Arch NME 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's an encyclopedia but it's not an encyclopedia by the common terms it's an encyclopedia of the modern world. Warez and the like are part of the modern world and should be documented as such. People look for all sorts of things on google and on wikipedia (and wikipedia tends to be the first result on google) and is an easy database to find almost anything you want information on.Syberwolff 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is insanity. Do NOT try to make this about "credible sources". You either have an agenda or are trying to cover up your initial screw-up that was suggesting to delete something YOU never heard about. This is a warez group, they don't use Hilton & Knowles for press releases, they don't give interviews, they try to stay OUT of the media. There are articles and links quoted, but THEIR sources are not reliable enough? These high standards would get a lot religious articles in trouble. Can you please point out exactly what you are after? A glossy paper print of "Top of the pops of the warez scene"? I have no affiliation with Paradox nor the warez scene (other than seeing their stuff on my Amiga 15 years ago), but I do read on the web from time to time about them and other childhood heroes like Fairlight and Razor 1911. Ok, angry rant.Finishing off with a source. Here, mostly from the demo division, but also some cracktros: http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=156 (Update: Replaced with better link). And no, I did not sign up for this article. I signed up for Brian Peppers, but couldn't edit it :d Levelcourt 19:28, 4 March 2007
  
  • "What I'm after" is best summed up by the link I provided above to WP's policies on reliable sources. Whether you like it or not, Wikipeida requires that an article topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial works." I had no hand in writing this policy, but I agree with it and will enforce it. If you want a specific example of a warez article that meets these standards, DrinkOrDie has sources such as the Sydney Morning Herald, ZDNetUK, a couple of Slashdot articles, and a news release from the United States Department of Justice. None of those sources alone would prove notability, but together they make a good case. More importantly, they provide verifiable information from publications with editorial review. Again, if anyone disagrees with my analysis of a source, speak now.--Djrobgordon 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

drink or die only has those sources cus they were busted on a massive scale. You are basically saying you have to be arrested to make it in wikipedia on this topic. I'll say again this is not a bureaucracy and use some human judgement here, WP:IAR. Also in regard to your comment levelcourt, this article wouldn't have been nominated for deletion if it was in the condition it is in now, the original nom was an understandable mistake. Please assume good faith - Arch NME 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all. The Unabomber was notable long before he was arrested and before his identity was known, because he was written about at length by a number of sources. I'm going to have a real life for a few hours, so don't take the fact that I won't be responding immediately as an acceptance of anything.--Djrobgordon 19:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"You are basically saying you have to be arrested to make it in wikipedia on this topic." Note the bold text!!! He said IN THIS TOPIC.. Was the Unabomber a Warez Pirate? Uhh.. I don't think so! I don't know if the bold was edited in after your comment or what but to ignore it is just plain.. ignorance... Murders would appear on the six o'clock news, cracked software.. not so much!Syberwolff 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

IAR was not created to keep articles which can't be properly sourced. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are non-negotiable cornerstones and foundations of wikipedia. IAR doesn't apply.--Crossmr 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is not an issue of original research or neutral point of view going on here. It's one of reliable sources. IAR does apply in fact this is a perfect case for it. - Arch NME 06:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/05/1740222 (The submitter mistook Paradox for a person, but as a "ctrl-f paradox" will show, several readers point out it is a group. But I guess as it refers to Engadget, it is not qualified as a source either. Levelcourt
• Delete per nom. Roehl Sybing 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- this is a very well-known and significant group. Just because its activities are grey-area doesn't mean it's not worthy of an article. Killdevil 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The debate is not on the content and legality of it but on the verifability of the documentation.Syberwolff 22:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If you comment after this, I will not answer it. Cman 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Then explain your reasoning. This is not a vote, its a discussion.--Crossmr 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. not a single source that meets WP:RS. --Fredrick day 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair there is one, the story from 1990 about the arrest. Though I wonder, the website only has cracks going back to 1998, and the arrest was 8 years before that. It wouldn't be the first time I'd see a group name snatched.--Crossmr 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read ref 1 from the article it's got the full story on that. -Arch NME 08:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, for those who are inclined to keep: please note that editorializing, wikilawyering, being uncivil, or pulling out any of these comments as your !vote reasons will not help the article. Per the comment at the top of the AfD, the question is whether this group is notable above and beyond the warez or demo scene, and whether the sources of notability are reliable. If you want to change our mind, answer those questions. --Dennisthe2 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't need to be notable above and beyond the warez/demo scene any more than a band needs to be notable above and beyond the music scene. You could make any number of analogys here to different "scenes", science, art, sports, etc. The scene itself is notable and therefore the major players in it are. IMHO anyway. - Arch NME 08:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep the sources are where you would expect sources on this sort of thing to be, It is time we recognized the different nature of sources for some types of subject--can it be that WP is getting ossified, like some other enclyclopedias? (smile) The exclusion of articles about what everyone on both sides of the discussion knows to be well known, is , I would hope, an anomaly. The people here saying keep are basically saying the rule needs adaption to reality, and they are right. Reinterpretation here is a very good way to change it. DGG 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an argument to change policy - not to save this article based on the current policy. There is no way that the fundemental changes to WP:RS suggested here can or should be achieved via this AFD. --Fredrick day 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A source can be usable for sourcing information but not for establishing notability. Notability is the issue here and why its been raised for deletion. Press releases for example can be used to cite information, but even if 100 notable reliable sources picked it up and reprinted it, you can't use that as a basis to form an article on the subject.--Crossmr 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Someone has apparently added what looks like a "reliable source" for the windows vista story from APC magazine[2]. I would also like to add one of the comments an APC reader made to this discussion to illustrate the systemic bias we are dealing with.

"Why would you post something like this to the public. All that you are doing is advertising a hack for people to get their hands on. APC Mag is no worse then the hackers themselves. Giving out the name of the hack with the screenshot and everything. Any idiot can now do a search for this hack. You are telling how the hole is being exploited , the same as giving away trade secrets. Im sure this information isnt supposed to be in the public domain. I hope there is a lawsuit waiting for APC mag." - eko2000

I think that really says it all right there. -Arch NME 06:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If we're only including information from reliable sources, the "Raids and Arrests" section could stay, as well as a sentence about the Windows Vista keygen. That would be the entire article. It would be an embarrassment to Wikipedia, but it would be factual. I am not endorsing this course of action, but rather pointing out the context-free trivia list this article will be if kept.--Djrobgordon 06:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

When I find articles like this and then see that they are up for deletion this causes me to be very irritated. Just what is Wikipedia for? Are the editors being bought off? Are some of the editors actually secreate agents of the commercial establishment. Lets face it - if the commercial establishment had their way there would not even be a Wikipedia! This place was createrd by people to share information; not by money grubbing commericalists who try to keep information secrete to protect their profits!!! Editors > Uphold and "protect" our and your right to recieve information through "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"! Don't succumb to the pressures of the few that say people should't be ALLOWED to know that.§ Wdwester 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)wdwester — wdwester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment User:Wdewster's only edits are to this afd.--Djrobgordon 20:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• OK, fine, I've personally been paid a million dollars from Microsoft to put in my Delete vote. Dude, get your head on straight and get with the %#$@%#!! program! --Dennisthe2 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest Keep :- Notable group. Is popular after vista crack. --SkyWalker 08:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep' Are now very notable. Macktheknifeau 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think that the awards section that Arch NME Added is a very good source of notability.Syberwolff 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • By the looks of it, WP:N feels otherwise. --Dennisthe2 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not only are those awards not significant, the gatherings they were handed out at aren't even notable. They don't have articles on their respective languages' Wikipedias, and my Google test was an utter failure. Also, I'm curious why, if this Vista hack is such a huge deal, no major tech news sites (CNET, Wired, PC World, etc.) have picked up on it. They're usually pretty quick to cover security breaches in Microsoft products.--Djrobgordon 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Those links were not added to establish notability they were added to provide more substance to the article from reliable sources. No these minor awards by themselves do not make the subject notable but notability has already been established. It's just meat. - Arch NME 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Radman1s Computer Underground notability test - Arch NME 08:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Quoting the link, "[this] scoring system represents my personal opinion and nothing more, it is not official Wiki-policy". The quote says it all. This does not make it notable. --Dennisthe2 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that's pretty damn obvious to anyone dennis. I don't honestly think the reviewing admin is going to get confused and mistake radman1s cunt for an official wikipedia policy. Further, my 50 various arguments for notability have been made above, feel free to reread them all. I just put it out there cus I thought it might be of interest for this discussion as it adds that guys opinion of what makes for a worthy article on this subject. - Arch NME 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, if you think it's that obvious, then why are you obfuscating the AfD with nonsense? --Dennisthe2 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not nonsense, it's not an official policy, it is what it is and like I said above it represents another users opinion of what makes for a worthy article on this subject and is therefore relevant if only in a minor capacity, much as just another editor comment placed here would be. - Arch NME 08:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Come on, I completly agree with Arch and this link he posted, while its OBVIOUSLY not official policy it is something that can be followed to help in the process of noting articles like this seeing as there is usually very little actual notable sources. We need articles like this on wikipedia and we need a guideline to follow for their sources and that is exactly what ArchNME has provided with that link. ^SyBer_WoLff 14:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, as is demonstrated, this is not the place to discuss policy changes - this is the place to discuss whether the PARADOX warez group is notable. So far, I see opinions of what should be notable and suggestions for policy changes - and nothing, with the possible exception of the links provided by the anon user, has really proven that it is. If you think it's notable, then change my mind by doing something with those links in conjunction with WP:V and WP:N. Don't complain here about policy or go wikilawyering, because that will not change my mind. That said, I've nothing more to say on the topic. --Dennisthe2 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Dennis maybe you should go actually read the WP:LAWYER page. After you have done that tell me which side of this debate it sounds to you like it's describing. I would especially look really hard at numbers 2 and 3 on the list at the top. Not trying to be a dick here but honestly you are completely offbase throwing that one out there. I don't see syberwolf throwing alot of legal terminology your way, I don't see him being overly anal about technicalitys in the rules. Just debating a subject is not wikilawyering. Further a notable source has been provided, the APC mag Vista crack article. It establishes notability and is a reliable source. Not every single source in an article needs to establish notability. Other rational arguments have been made for the case of notability as well but you seem to be to caught up in the letter of the policys to have heard them. You are a human being not a RULEBOT5000 please start acting like it. No one needs to change any policy here and no one is suggesting that we do. Here's a qoute from WP:CREEP that you ought to take note of "Our editors are volunteers, and are not obliged to follow procedure if they feel following them doesn't benefit the encyclopedia." and another from WP:LAWYER "Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsensical way to achieve the purpose of the policy" and another from WP:IAR "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.". If anyone is acting like the wikilawyer here it is you. It's good to know the policys and often very good to follow them but keep them in perspective for what they are. - Arch NME 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Notice how once you prove to him that he's wrong he won't even admit it. I think that 'Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit;' perfectly describes the current situation. He in interpreting the rules on notability by the letter and violating the spirit of wikipeda itself, to provide information that is truthful. All of the information on the group has been proven to be truthful in one way or another. I believe that the sheer volume of sources we have alone would also provide notability. We have in my oppinion showed many times over how notable this group is and in several different forms. I am amazed that people still deny their notability.^SyBer_WoLff 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• I currently can't be arsed (due to the amount of material) but textfiles.com could be trawled for info about PARADOX' activities. A cursory Google search seems to return a number of articles related to the group [3] (though not all of these hits are). 86.56.48.12 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• This appears typical of Wikipedia, a valid article up for deletion on a whim. A few of my own articles have been erased for no good reason and this bad taste the Wikipediaphiles (similar to audiophiles but for Wiki) are leaving with internet users is doing nothing for the general feel good factor it had a year ago. On the topic of Paradox, I'm sure I could go and dig out a dusty CDR from 8 years ago, find the FILE_ID.DIZ file and the related .NFO, fire them up onto Geoshities and call that conclusive proof. DJRikki
  • You're being far too optimistic here. The people you're talking to have never heard of FILE_ID.DIZ and .NFO files. See my original comment above. 86.56.48.12 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course. Why explain why these files are relevant when you can insult other editors for not knowing instead?--Djrobgordon 01:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Additional thoughts: If there's an article for Red Sector (TRSI) (and for [later] single demoscene products such as .kkrieger), then surely a group of PARADOX' stature deserve an article, too. (Again, it's obvious to me that the OP had no idea of the significance of the cracking scene in the history of IT, much less being actually qualified to assess the relative importance of the major players at the time.) 86.56.48.12 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• To Djrobgordon: I'm under no obligation to explain anything to you here. These are all voluntary contributions. If you want me to help you, try asking politely. If you don't want to do that, then you're welcome to pay me by the hour and I'll help you anytime you want. Also, is stating an obvious truth really an insult? I may not have been particularly polite above (that's a fair criticism), but I stand by my words insofar as I believe they were right on the money. Now obviously I could dig my heels in and not tell you anything, because you didn't exactly ask a friendly question, but anyway: There was significant overlap between the BBS scene and the warez-cracker/cracktro/demoscene. Both FILE_ID.DIZ and *.NFO files frequently accompanied warez found on BBSes. Watch this documentary for details on the BBS scene: http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/ Apart from that, in the words of Keith Olbermann: "Use teh Google!" If you did http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/, you would probably discover that there's this really nifty encyclopedia out there, which just happens to have articles on these subjects: FILE_ID.DIZ, NFO/.nfo

PS: If you want to look at NFO files these days, you have to use a viewer that can properly display the good old Code page 437 (which was the standard). Otherwise all you'll see is gobbledygook. 86.56.48.12 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Only remotely related nostalgia:

I just found this text file: http://www.textfiles.com/piracy/HUMBLE/read.thg

From the file:

“

(...) we desperately need a 9600 baud HST compatible modem.

”

And 9600 baud was once considered FAST. Much faster than those 300 baud acoustic couplers, anyway. 86.56.48.12 02:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, your argument above is not a valid argument for inclusion, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Furthermore, the attitude is really, really not conducive here. Furthermore, none of this matters - unless you can produce independent, verifiable sources, your opinion about whether or not said piece of software is important is moot. It really doesn't matter what the nominator knows about cracking, wares, or whatever other topic your care to insult him over - all that matters is that this article does not meet standards under WP:NOTE and no one has been able to bring it up to standards by providing the necessary sources. One does not have to be an expert on a subject to help enforce Wikipedia's guidelines on pages relating to it. --Haemo 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• 86.56.48.12: You're not helping me, you're helping the article. If you actually have an interest in keeping it, you have a better chance of changing someone's mind by explaining your point. The only purpose of your comment was to point out the ignorance of others, and that's not civil or productive. Do you honestly believe it added any substance to this debate? As to the above comment, those files would prove that this group exists, a point with which no editor has disagreed. The objections to this article are that it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for notability and that there isn't enough verifiable information to write an article. There are plenty of arguments above about why PARADOX is notable, but none about how it meets Wikipedia notability standards. There are plenty of sources, but almost none of them are usable to establish notability. I have no problem changing my vote on an AfD when the article comes into accordance with standards, but it hasn't happened here.--Djrobgordon 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Amiga Demo Scene Encyclopedia search — Go ahead! Scoff at it! Say that it's "not credible"! You're welcome! :) 86.56.48.12 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You've proven, once again, that PARADOX exists, and that they released a series of cracks between 1990 and 1995. Nobody is disputing that. If I'm supposed to get something else from this source, you're going to have to spell it out for me.--Djrobgordon 06:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Inflated view of one's own insignificant discussion group does not make it notable. To be very blunt, I am sick of such delusions of grandeur. --Nlu (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not some discussion group it's a warez production group. --froth^T 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is one of the most famous cracking groups- definately notable. FYI here's an inquirer article about their most recent feat- a BIOS emulation driver that convinces WGA that your Vista is OEM --froth^T 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the above article is definitely a good article to establish notability. ^SyBer_WoLff 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - well known, notable group --J2thawiki 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• I believe that the sheer volume of sources we have alone would also provide notability. We have in my oppinion showed many times over how notable this group is and in several different forms. I am amazed that people still deny their notability.^SyBer_WoLff 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - They've shown notability and have provided sources to back up the article. That's all that is needed in this debate. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:57, 8 March 2007 (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.