Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotwiring

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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hotwiring

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

This article not only contains "how to" instructions (a violation of Wikipedia policy), but describes how to commit a serious crime. Simply editing the article and removing it would leave it in the archives for others to view. This article should be deleted and rewritten without these instructions. Hellno2 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete My experience is that there's always a dumbass out there who says "take the how-to part out and it'll be fine", but anyone who knows how to review an edit history will know how to hot wire a car too. In the case of giving a step by step on how to on how a child can build a bomb out of household materials, or commit a felony, a delete and start-over is the answer. Mandsford (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid encyclopedic topic. Catchpole (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Trying to cut off a possible argument someone might make by calling them a dumbass is not very constructive behavior. That having been said, Delete and start over seems like the right course of action in this case.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is nothing illegal about hotwiring a car; it is stealing a car that is illegal. Wikipedia is not censored; we don't omit information just because somebody might use it in the course of committing a crime. All that needs to be done here is edit the article to conform to WP:NOT#HOWTO. Jfire (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not the greatest article, but an obviously notable topic. Rewrites should only begin with deletions where there is no usable content in the article or its history. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment:The reason why I nominated this for deletion is that I thought the information contained in here could be harmful to society. Sure, Wikipedia is not censored, but that just means that Wikipedia contains information that may be inappropriate for people under a certain age, such as nude images or profanity.
In this case, the issue is not about something that is inappropiate for children, but information that can be used to commit a felony. Had someone written on Wikipedia how to blow up a building using common household items, the feds would be raising hell to have the information removed, even from the archive, so it not be accessible to the public.
As for the argument that not all hotwiring is illegal: Breaking into one's own house is not illegal either. But most of the time, when breaking and entry occurs, it is a criminal act. So we would not want that information posted here. The same is true with hotwiring.Hellno2 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously an article on "How to make a fertilizer bomb" would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we don't mention it in the appropriate article. And the reason we mention it is that it's notable. It's the same case here; hotwiring is a notable concept, and so it derserves a place on wiki. If you feel there are inappropriately detailed instructions, be bold and fix it. As I said, articles don't get deleted when they're fixable and contain useful material. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable encycl. topic. And its absolutely legal to do this on your own car. It is also legal to do this if you are from the police and you have to use/remove the car, ... --helohe (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The problem here was not the topic, but the instructional content. Remove this, which I did, and the article's encyclopaedically valid. It could do with a tidy by someone who knows more about auto-mechanics, but ok. Any concerns about it being in the edit history are over-stated. The edit history is not indexed, you'd need to know it was there and go looking for it. I'm sure there are other far more instructional pages on the net indexed on google.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment and Question I don't know yet if I am in favor of keeping or deleting this article, and rewriting it, and the nom suggests. But there is a big question brought up by this whole debate: should an archive on Wikipedia ever be killed if there is anything controversial about it? This whole discussion is not really about this article in itself, but about the archiving of older versions of an article. One time, I found an article vandalized offensively with the N-word, and it bothered me that it could still be found in the archive after the vandalism was reverted. Shaliya waya (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Answer: Only oversights can selectively remove versions of an article from its history, and this is normally only invoked to hide information that could be used to indentify or contact an individual off-wiki. In all other cases, it is generally considered that the need for transparency rules. However, oversight may also be invoked in exceptional circumstances, such as Wikipedia is being dragged through the mud over it. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Articles like these are notable and not beyond saving. Although they walk a fine line to keep edit wars from happening (eg PIT maneuver, edit war free for over 6months ) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, Wikipedia does not censor. Transfer the how-to to a wikibooks in auto-mechanics or something and expand this article to cover the topic in further detail. Lord Metroid (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There's nothing on here that one couldn't find using Google.

Vala M (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2008 (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.