Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital DawgPound

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. RFerreira (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital DawgPound

Withdrawn w/o prejudice by nom

Digital DawgPound (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A complicated one. This is an NN hacker group founded by a security expert who himself was a keep at its AfD (full disclosure: I was the nom, it was my second ever AfD). That article, this one, and Binary Revolution Radio are part of a web of articles that all revolve around one marginally notable topic: a now-defunct Internet radio show about hacking. Long story short: maybe the "radio show" merits an article, and maybe the founder does, but the founder's "hacking group"? NN. No reliable sources. Attribute articles in hacker zines to their authors, not their "hacking group". Let's clean this up: Delete. --- tqbf 17:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the entire coverage for this group at NEWS.GOOGLE.COM: 1 hit, which isn't about the group, but rather about this guy, who already has an article. --- tqbf 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to use google news as source for a topic that is not mainstream news. you use google to support your claims when it is convenient for you, but when others do it, you say that google hits do not count. You cannot have it both ways. I am sure that there are thousands of BIO entries that have no google news hits. This is not support for deletion in and of itself. Bad Monk3y 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Per this AfD: fringiness does not not trump verifiability. "Digital DawgPound", whatever that may be, is not notable, because no reliable secondary source appears to have written about it. Note also: this user appears to be a WP:SPA, according to their contribs. --- tqbf 06:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "Binrev" merits an article, but not DDP. Makes a poor attempt at asserting notability. Non-notable hacking group. Delete. Also, being close-knit with this group and Binrev myself, I may be creating a COI by voting here. --Othtim 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

strong keep - I vote to keep this article based on the multiple verified projects that are clearly sourced on the page. I think this page does a good job at proving all of its content with verified sources. If one member of this group was not deleted when his article was reviewed, then the entire group is even more notable and should also pass.This article is one of the better ones since it has multiple solid sources for everything. Bad Monk3y 04:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

— Bad Monk3y (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }

Just going to note again: you will have a hard time finding a sourceable claim to notability on this article that isn't the basis of some other article's claim to notability. We don't need 4 articles for one topic. --- tqbf 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the person who nominated this deletion has a history of deleting any article related to this group and this community and I would submit that they are all in bad faith. you can see on this users page that he actually maintains a list bragging about how many deletions that he has along with a comment about how anyone who doesn't agree with him must obviously "hate America". If that doesn't show bad faith and bad intentions, I don't know what does. Bad Monk3y 04:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop hating America, "Bad Monkey". If you hadn't noticed --- pretty much all those noms won AfD. :) --- tqbf 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not disagree with most of them. Just the ones that I voted on. Please do not slander me with comments about me Hating America. I *know* that is against WP policy. Bad Monk3y 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Sources seem to mainly be blogs which generally fail WP:RS.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the group is a notable publisher of tech information and the Google News search is hardly all-inclusive. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a more inclusive search that would actually establish notability? Thanks! --- tqbf 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome, I appreciate your sincere and highly excited politeness. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, forget the search. Can you cite a single reliable source about this group? Or do you just like it a lot? --- tqbf 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a hacking-related group, I think the multiple, no, dozens of publications in 2600 Magazine and similar magazines are more that sufficient to establish an interest in this group. Then you have the multiple appearances at various technological conferences, increasing that interest. Surely you are not as dense as you are making yourself out to be. Coccyx Bloccyx 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown of articles listed, CV-style, on this page:

1. 8 (13%) articles in 2600 by 3 authors not already covered on WP.
2. 8 (13%) articles in 2600 by David Blake.
3. 25 (43%) articles in NN pubs "BR Magazine" and "Blacklisted! 411" (deleted at AfD, per above)
4. 17 (28%) "articles" in NN "online publications"

Precisely zero of these articles are "bylined" (heh) to "DDP", whatever that is. This is fan-cruft. It's flypaper for CV-style detritus for an NN "hacker group" never once written about in a reliable source. Articles are listed on WP pages when they are notable; can you provide evidence of any of these "articles" ever being cited anywhere? --- tqbf 19:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems as if deleting this article would simply serve to detract from other articles on notable people and projects that have been associated with and encouraged by this group. Am I to understand from this debate that StankDawg is notable, and yet an integral reason for his notability is not? That seems quite ludicrous. Also, the fact that this debate was not started in the "web or internet" category (where it should logically be) is simply bad form.GloomyRobot 10:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• — GloomyRobot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sorry you feel that way; I felt like "Web or Internet" implied the page referred to a web page, and that the category I did file it under made more sense. Perhaps you're right. --- tqbf 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You may notice that the DDP is not a reason for Stankdawg's notability. No one is suggesting that it is. Secondary sources are not suggesting that the DDP is a reason for Stankdawg's notability. --Othtim 14:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable hacking group. Group + associated members profiles and websites seem to be circular references designed to prop their claims for legitimacy. Bannedinnyc (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• — Bannedinnyc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. good entry, well known group in hacking circles, citations and references given. I volunteer to help clean it up if it is kept. Mutant spyd3r (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• — Mutant spyd3r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks for the vote. Can I ask which references those might be? All I see is blog posts. --- tqbf 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly keep - Perfectly-notable hacking group. Quite well known beyond just their community. They've also produced several perfectly-notable projects which have received the attention of the wider hacking community. - Timsheridan (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is the creator of the article. Creator of the article: do you have references to cite? --- tqbf 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I was browsing and saw what was happening here and had to register to vote. This article is perfectly fine and the subjects are well known even if you cannot find mainstream media support for them. The same holds true for half of wikipedia entries. This is why wikipedia is great to have a record of such people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimpapedia (talk • contribs) 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

— Pimpapedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - tqbf, stop asserting that everything related to StankDawg or Binrev revolves around "a now-defunct Internet radio show". The presentations and printed articles referenced in this entry should clearly illustrate that this is not the case. These same references should also show how notable the DDP has been and continues to be. KDerrida (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What references? I'm sorry I seem contentious here, but I really don't see them. Nobody has written about DDP, and every notable member of the group already has a Wikipedia article --- even some their projects do! All this article has is a cv-style listing of NN articles in NN pubs. --- tqbf 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What reference are you looking for? Isn't a group like this BEST defined by its accomplishments, projects, and influences? Also, 2600 is non-notable now? The magazine that shaped the face of hacking as we know it? I suppose HOPE, DEFCON, and Make Magazine aren't notable either (even though you've listed two of them as notable on your user page). I understand that as per Wikipedia policies, you're doing everything in good faith, but I find it funny that whenever you interpret something for the consumption of readers, you make the strangest errors, like mistaking all the print references for blog posts, as you did in reply to Mutant Spyd3r, or confusing the DDP with an internet radio show. Consider taking more care with these things in the future. KDerrida (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the confusion now. You're implying that everything any "member" of this group ever wrote is a reference for the group's notability. No: (a) 2600 is notable, but not every article in it is, and that's easy to measure: find citations; (b) the articles themselves aren't bylined to DDP; even when "StankDawg" wrote them; (c) the purpose of references is to verify notability, and none of these articles are about DDP. --- tqbf 14:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Bad_Monk3y, who is the only "keep" on this AfD apart from the article's original author with more than 20 edits, has proposed that we merge this article into StankDawg. Binary Revolution Radio is another fine destination. I happily endorse "merge and redirect", but note that Bad_Monk3y hasn't actually done so here. --- tqbf 02:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm glad there's someone handy to speak for Bad_Monk3y. It's a shame he couldn't show up himself in this AFD to tell us what he thinks.KDerrida (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(a) He already voted, above, and (b) I linked to what he said. --- tqbf 14:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Proposing withdrawal --- my issue with this article is that it is part of a constellation of 8 articles revolving around the same topic. I'm requesting a merge, as I learn from the debate, but I think the onus is on me to do the legwork on that merge, rather than demanding that other editors do it for me. This debate is littered with SPA comments, and I think I can make a strong case to delete and win with it, but not without being a dick. I'm going to do the merge and revisit this page later. --- tqbf 17:24, 9 December 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.