Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard (warez)

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:S33k3r. — JIP | Talk 04:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standard (warez)

Wikipedia is not a text repository, not even when the text is in image format. --fvw* 06:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I don't know what this is, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Sapient 11:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep New version by S33k3r worthy of inclusion. Sapient 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if not rewritten - an article could be made about this (I think) but this isn't it. Secretlondon 21:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be one hack/crack group's "standards" for releasing files. Not encyclopedic. ESkog 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (original: Do not delete): What's everyone's obsession with perfection? Yes, I agree with Secretlondon, to an extent, that to be in here, a piece of information needs to be presented contextually, but why not label it as being in severe need of revision, as opposed to removing information which is a) rare and b) very interesting and releveant to exploration of "warez" culture? Again, just because some information is "not encyclopedic" doesn't mean that it shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia, especially one with as many limitless capabilities as Wikipedia. We don't remove a picture of a green apple because it's notr epresentative of apples in general, do we? Finally, let's take Sapient's cue and describe "what it is," instead of killing off valuable information. NeoThe1 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article is appendix for Warez and Topsite. Instead of including this load of text into the articles, it's made as separate page, for sake of clarity. Reason for text to image is, that standards are ratified as they are, the text itself cannot be changed, even if it sounds silly or contains errors. New revisions to standards should replace the old images. S33k3r 15:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I see where you are going with this, but Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states: Wikipedia articles are not.... 3. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Does this not fall foul here, in its current state? Are these standards accessible on an external web-site and as such be referenced as an external link? If this article were an explanation of the standards, how they are arrived at, how they have developed and their significance, then I would consider that encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. As it stands, I'm afraid I'll have to stick with my original opinion. Sapient 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article to more wiki-like style, and tagged it as stub.

S33k3r 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Your new version is much improved and a worthy start. I've tagged it with the wikify tag to assist, and changed my vote accordingly. Thanks for your work on this. Sapient 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep rewrite is muuuuuuuuuuuuuch (think I added enough "u"'s to that :) better  ALKIVAR™ 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you're a few short, but yes, much better, thanks. Keep. --fvw* 01:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: thank god for these standards, lest warez get a bad name. -- Kjkolb 03:22, 4 October 2005 (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.