Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TESO

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)

[edit] TESO

Non-notable hacker group that only originated in 2000. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} June 29, 2005 19:22 (UTC)

My vote is delete, in case I didn't make that clear. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 3, 2005 00:25 (UTC)

Keep. I disagree. Teso was significant. They didn't make perfect media stunts like others in the hacker groups category, but just ask anyone who monitored BUGTRAQ back then if they remember the group. They had impact because of their releases. Also they were started in 1998, not 2000 as you wrongly claim. They are responsible for discovering and releasing many exploits and tools that are still widely in use, and/or were revolutionary. They also made the media a few times, despite not trying to, and are still quite famous for repeatedly finding and/or exploiting bugs in openbsd.

The original article was flagged for deletion before i could add more references. I've added some now. Maybe the article requires restructuring, or should be marked as a stub while i'm still working on it. If you need more references to evaluate TESO's significance, please google for "teso security" and "team teso".

Also i'd like to note that TESO had been a dangling link from List_of_hacker_and_cracker_groups as Team Teso before i renamed it and started writing the article. However, I'm not sure of List_of_hacker_and_cracker_groups's significance, as categories should take care of automatic listing. --Enki 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

• • User has 12 prior edits. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:10 (UTC)
• Delete ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:10 (UTC)
• Delete. Likely to be completely irrelevent in ten years, if it isn't already.--Scimitar 29 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously it exists, and is not an advert, and I see potential for some meaningful content. Stub for now. Falcon June 29, 2005 22:06 (UTC)
• Keep. The group has over 3,000 Google hits from a wide variety of sources. As for the comment that Enki has only 12 edits, he plainly states that he is the author of the article so this is not the case of a sock puppet coming on. Even a newbie ought to be able to defend his own article, particularly in a case like this when someone slaps a vfd on the article within two minutes of the time it was started. DS1953 29 June 2005 22:54 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable hacking group. Capitalistroadster 30 June 2005 01:55 (UTC)
• Keep and continue expanding. I can agree with Enki; no high profile stunts but still notable due to tools/continuing use. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish June 30, 2005 17:29 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, not notable. Kaibabsquirrel 1 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)
• Keep, not vanity, and notability is not a deletion criterion, still. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable (a perfectly fine deletion criterion). Most of the claims in the article are unsourced and must either be verified or removed if the article is kept. Quale 3 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.