Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HellBound Hackers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:07Z
[edit] HellBound Hackers
This website doesn't meet verifiability because of a lack of reliable sources. 13 unique google hits and an Alexa ranking of around 200,000. Also doesn't meet inclusion criteria at WP:WEB. Wafulz 20:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: A7. Just look at the criticism section. Non notable. Chovain 21:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Wait - I get 38,000 google hits with my search
[1]. Abstaining. Chovain 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Check the second page of your search... --Wafulz 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 21:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I also get around 38,000 results through Google but I can't find any coverage by reliable sources (i.e. nothing in Google News) so it doesn't pass WP:WEB. Jayden54 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - HackThisSite is a much smaller website with the same theme and purpose, if this article isn't good enough/is biased (I fixed the criticism thing) then it should be edited or rewritten, I think it's unfair thhat it's being put up for deletion before it's even near completion Happysmileman 22:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Again, HTS has its own page, mostly because of the Jeremy Hammond going to jail thing, does it take a webmaster's incarceration to be notable? it's looking like that's going to happen to HBH, and then it'll have plenty of sources. It's probably the biggest, most well put together hack challenge website. Sometimes information can be useful without meeting sources requirements. If those awards that they give to websites that make them notable like Webbies or whatever were given to these kinds of websites, it'd have one. Sometimes slightly subversive sites like these can lack sources but are still popular, and therefore useful to Wikipedia. (this next part is just meant to be funny) As the old argument goes, if all the freaking 200 Pokemon have a page, why not this? J0lt C0la 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is an AfD for HellBound Hackers, not whatever you're talking about. "If x then y" is not an argument against "no reliable sources exist." Verifiability is an official policy, while WP:POKEMON is an essay that is explicitly neither a policy nor a guideline. Articles like Charizard (or even Magicarp) have a plethora of sources, compared to the complete lack of sources here.
- "Sometimes information can be useful without meeting sources requirements"- This would be original/primary research, which is not allowed. --Wafulz 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- The last sentence was marked humor, sorry for even including it. I know it's a faulty argument, it was just wiki-humor, I used it to lighten things up some. As for the article, I've made some improvements (though I lost many towards the end when my computer crashed mid-way), and if it does stay, it will fit Wikipedia better than it did before J0lt C0la 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- My point wasn't to shoot down your comparison between this and pokemon- it was that the article still has no sources. --Wafulz 03:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- The last sentence was marked humor, sorry for even including it. I know it's a faulty argument, it was just wiki-humor, I used it to lighten things up some. As for the article, I've made some improvements (though I lost many towards the end when my computer crashed mid-way), and if it does stay, it will fit Wikipedia better than it did before J0lt C0la 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No independent sources to show notability. Edison 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -Feels like a self congratulatory ad. Elfich 20:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to admit I was wrong about this one. Originally, I thought this was a salvageable, worthwhile article about a topic that I felt was important but hindered by lack of sources due to its subversive topics (regular media would never cover anything like this unless someone's being arrested). But then I tried to improve the article and make it more encyclopedic, and it just continued to become a self-serving mess. I realize now that without sources to pull from (though sadly, there probably never will be, no matter how popular it gets, as these types of sites shun press for obvious reasons), it will always fall into the mess that this article is now. I retract my keep. J0lt C0la 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Spam and nothing more. --Nlu (talk) 07:00, 27 December 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.
