Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCKGW

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was CONSENSUS NOT REACHED.

[edit] FCKGW

This page includes no notable text that isn't already in Windows XP, Product activation, Microsoft product activation debate, and half a dozen articles on Copy prevention, piracy and the like. This article constantly attracts people adding the entire key to the article. Wikipedia is not a cracks database. It has 29,000 google hits, but that reflects the popularity of pirating Windows XP, not this particular key on its own SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect with/to Microsoft product activation debate. Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 20:01 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from re-creation. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 22:47 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: The information in the article is of significant encyclopedic value, and offers no material assistance to pirates (as if this should even be a factor in the decision!). The key was disabled by Microsoft three years ago, and is of real historical value. Alereon July 1, 2005 03:44 (UTC)
  • It can't be disabled in software that has already been shipped, and you yourself added the key [1] that's material assistance to piracy. There is nothing encyclopedic in the article that isn't presented in other articles. SchmuckyTheCat 8 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)
• Keep: What seems to be the problem with keeping an article about the historical use of a product activation key. The key has been disabled so it isn't an ongoing situation which means it does not really belong in the current article 'Microsoft product activation debate', it belongs in its own article. --ShaunMacPherson 1 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect with/to Microsoft product activation debate. Although I agree that it contains useful information it is misplaced under this title. --Deelkar (talk) 1 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
• Keep : Same opinion as Aleron. Frankchn 1 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
• Keep : As per above. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)
• Keep as per Aleron. JamesBurns 06:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - same as Aleron. ---AM088 01:39, 16 January 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.