Talk:PARADOX (warez)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-05. The result of the discussion was No consensus.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Im sure that paradox doenst rls for the Usenet or p2p. There is still a core of real sceners!

Is this an article or an advertisement?

Don't really know what to make of this article. Can someone please clarify? --Dysepsion 05:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

At least now it makes sense. Jth299 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This article seems extremely POV. We need some neutral documentation. --Lhademmor 10:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

For having been a member of this group at its debuts, I must say the story here looks a little romanced. This page is like a copy/paste of an old history section from the website paradox.com, somewhat rewritten (might be retrived using archive.org). The original was also romanced, more like a self-advertisement written by Max himself. TwilighT 01:21, 01 December 2005 (GMT)

As far as I can tell the subject is valid but the article needs alot of work to wikify. Is there some one familiar with the topic that might be able to save some of it? It seems a waste to lose the entire article. Veritas Liberum 23:00, 06 December 2005 (GMT)

I was curious. Now I know. I think this article deserves it's place. Not that there isn't room for improvement, but when isn't there? Erik E. 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Failed AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARADOX (warez). Johnleemk | Talk 19:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Well, the best i could do was upload PNG image of the softwares. I would like to expand more, but dont know mutch about the team. --R2cyberpunk 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Should there be a section on Arrests or something of the sort?

Should there? Syberwolff 09:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] All the stuff that didn't belong on the article page...

Below is the garbled mess that didn't belong on the article page. It looks like a cross between campaigning against the AFD, talk, and an AFD debate copied and pasted. I'm going to do a little more cleanup on the article and see what becomes of it. Pjbflynn 07:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia's deletion policy (PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE...)as everyone has the right to FREE SPEECH

This article is being considered for deletion for the 2nd time in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

--- what gives Wikipedia??????? this info everyone has the right to know this website is a encyclopedia so there should be NO Need for this to be removed. its called FREE SPEECH and if your going to remove it then you should not call this site a encyclopedia site. --- I completely agree, there is no reason to remove this information from the public. This is a wiki, lets treat it like one.

Frankly I think their relevence has just been proven by the Vista issue; which has been reported by several sources.

No assertion of notability per the guidelines. A couple of nfos and a short bio compiled by some unknown individual doesn't make an article. Needs some evidence of non-trivial coverage by a reliable source.--Crossmr 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no polite way to say this, so I'll just say it. You're obviously too young to remember the composition, timeline, impact and effects of the cracking scene ca. 1985-1995, and you have no idea what the giants whose shoulders you are standing on were up to in their heyday (and they or their successors apparently still are to an extent). I'm having a hard time to refrain from throwing words like "trigger-happy" and "complete ignorance" around. I wish people didn't have such short attention spans and would pay more attention to history, including the history of the IT industry. Also, don't confuse legality with notability. User:REMOVED 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Its got nothing to do with legality. Wikipedia requires citation to establish notability and it hasn't been provied. Also read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA while you're at it.--Crossmr 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The article serves it's purpose, it informs people who don't know what the warez group Paradox is as to what it is... I mean come on it's a warez group.. it can't really have much other than what it has it's not like their going to list the name and address of all of their members and what software they've cracked when etc. etc... Syberwolff 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats kind of the issue. In order for content to exist here there has to be an assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or every warez group, high school club, or otherwise would have an article here.--Crossmr 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Unidentified user please calm down this is a civil discussion. Crossmr: Personally I would assume that "It was founded in 1990" and the vast variety of consoles would lend itself to their notability but if not I could do some research and find some. The only thing I ask is, and I don't know if you did this before-hand because I just looked at the article out of curiosity for the first time, but to mark it as needing varification, or as a stub or something (I'm still new on Wikipedia) instead of marking it for deletion. I believe every informative article should be welcome on Wikipedia as someone may be looking for information on Paradox and this is a good source (perhaps with a little more information, a great source.) And Vironex, he's saying that the article needs more sources citing how elaborate, and more evidence of how popular the group is.Syberwolff 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Because wikipedia has a threshold for inclusion and articles which do not meet that threshold get removed. So far the comments have been in the same vein as the article. A bunch of claims that this is a notable topic, yet nothing to back it up. --Crossmr 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what the heck is the use of wikipedia if you can't get information on groups like Paradox? Crossmr, do your homework!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:REMOVED (talk • contribs) 21:48, March 3, 2007.

I'm not required to do any homework here. The article fails to establish the notability of the group with any references from reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Regardless of how big and important the group may be to the warez scene if that can't be verified it doesn't count for much on wikipedia.--Crossmr 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Paradox is a pretty elaborate group. How exactly will anyone benefit from deleting this article? I think it'd be stupid not to have this article. I'll try to find some sources, so everybody wins. :) --Vironex 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's a web group with attitude. What makes them more than that? Should they be anything more than a mention within Warez? (And anon IPs with attitude really don't help) Shenme 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are notable for producing a crack for Vista that verifies the copy as genuine, allowing one to receive automatic updates. No other group to date has accomplished this feat, and it may also be impossible to "fix" given the nature of the crack. The following article describes this process, but does not directly contain content that violates copyright law. Link to article is here: http://www.uploadcrap.com/?subaction=showcomments&id=1172962283&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:REMOVED (talk • contribs) 22:00, March 3, 2007.

Above user: Yes that does describe their RECENT popularity but it says nothing of past feats and past popularity.Syberwolff 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats a blog that is not a reliable source per wikipedia's standards.--Crossmr 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a blog, but a news site, http://www.uploadcrap.com/blog/ would be a blog. --Vironex 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't need blog in the url to be a blog. Look at it, "Posted on 03 Mar 2007 by rjodwyer" and it has a comments seciton. That is a blog.--Crossmr 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Crossmr, That is indeed a blog. Syberwolff 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So I suppose Digg.com is a blog by your definition. I disagree. --Vironex 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It has a similar format for posting stories. Digg isn't useful as a citation either. The fact of the matter is, this is presented in a blog format, and we have no idea who richard is, or why his site should be considered a verifiable source of information on this. There is no assertion of editorial oversight either. Whether he wants to call it something other than a blog, or you do, there is no evidence that this site would be useful as news source.--Crossmr 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article should be removed, not due to the fact that the information in the article is questionable at best I mean we don't edit out information about Nazis but there is no context to the article. While it is informational I don't believe there is enough static data to call this a true article. At most this entry is a suburb which can be listed under Warez.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:REMOVED (talk • contribs) 22:05, March 3, 2007.

Keep. (see below) The article is gaining citations. As I previously stated, this is a very elaborate group and it makes sense to have a Wikipedia article about them. --Vironex 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, thats a blog and not a valid citation so it hasn't gained anything.--Crossmr 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge I would support merging it into the Warez article as a category(Is this right? Like I said: New) and having Paradox(warez) redirect there. Eventually if enough information is collected in that section then maybe give it it's own article Syberwolff 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This team is noteworthy. They are one of the oldest cracking groups, and deserve recognition as such. This is a good historical text, and I would be disappointed to see it disappear. --HaDAk 12:21, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Provide the evidence then. Wikipedia requires citation.--Crossmr 05:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
On their website they have cracked software avaliable from back to 1998, I'll provide a link momentarily. While this doesn't provide any notation of them being popular it does prove they are one of the oldest groups.http://www.paradogs.com/pdx_rels.htm - Dec 98 is the earliest.Syberwolff 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately age isn't the issue. The problem is notability, not longevity. They can be an old group without being notable.--Crossmr 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that but you were asking him to provide evidence of the longevity as was my understanding. Going back to my earlier comment would you support merging it with Warez as a category?Syberwolff 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As long as any merged information was verifiable yes.--Crossmr 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what kinds of sources are verifiable and I don't know how to go about finding such information and I doubt that there is much seeing as it's a warez group. But that sounds like a fair compromise to me.Syberwolff 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Start with these two pages, they should give you lots of information on how to start figuring out what is and isn't a good source: WP:V and WP:ATT.--Crossmr 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the three refs even come close to WP standards for verifiability.--Djrobgordon 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Crossmr is right, this article's citations are weak and not reliable. However, this team does deserve some mention, perhaps on the Warez page. I think a "Well-known warez groups" or some such section would be an appropriate placement, and this page could just redirect there. --Vironex 06:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like this page to stay - I found it useful. -Troels

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pdx herc.jpg

Image:Pdx herc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)