Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Network of Crackers

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Network of Crackers[edit]

No reliable sources for this information. All of it seems to be from a single site which doesn't seem to carry any legitimacy with it. Delete as not verifiable through reliable sources. Wickethewok 12:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are sources, but they're all from a site called defacto2, which doesn't appear to be a reliable source by our standards (WP:RS) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are actual text files and interviews from the group... if that isn't reliable, then I honestly don't know what would be. Defacto2 is a pretty large and decently known site about the warez scene as well... ZoeF 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS outlines what reliable sources typically tend to be. If we were doing an article about some arbitrary guy, would his website describing himself be a reliable source of information? Wouldn't he be able to say anything he wanted about himself without regard to whether or not its true? Thats why we need reliable secondary sources, such as something like a computer magazine article or Eweek.com or something like that. Wickethewok 02:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Things written by and about oneself or one's group are never truly reliable sources. Even if one tries to write completely neutrally, bias always arises because they're too close to the subject. I could spend the next few seconds writing a text file that says I'm 9 feet tall, come from Mars, have titanium buttcheeks, and have telekinetic control over pasta, but that wouldn't make it true and likely wouldn't convince many others, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep INC was the first major cracking network, as the name implies, for the IBM PC. This article is well referenced by authorities on the subject, namely Defacto2, textfiles.com, and direct interviews with those who ran the group. Furthermore, it later led to the formation of the now notorious Pirates With Attitude. Not to mention the fact that all of this data is clearly verifiable with a copy of this book. ALKIVAR™

03:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AND your interpretation of WP:RS is flawed as the sources in this article clearly fit our policy.

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following:

relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation or
not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye.

Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alkivar, important warez group. bbx 04:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously, as per my essays on the subject, I don't get involved in Wikipedia issues on the actual Wikipedia much, but I started getting contacted by a number of people about this particular debate, and wished to make a clear and concise statement. I run textfiles.com. I spend a large amount of my waking hours downloading, acquiring, and sorting through primary sources related to bulletin board systems, warez groups, online culture in general and a wide range of related subjects. I hand-scan printouts, transfer original floppy disks from dusty boxes, and travel to interview people who were involved in the various aspects of online life that I have on my site. I am in communication with other archivists doing similar work, or at least also collecting primary sources and information, and verifying, and doing all the proper background work one does when one collects history. Defacto2 is one of many groups doing this. We (defacto, myself, archive.org, Temple of the Screaming Electron (TOTSE) and many others) consider this information important, relevant, and we work to make it accurate and represent "what really happened". This is not the first time Mr. Lenahan has decided to put his mark on deleting aspects of this culture in the name of relevancy, and his statements in the past bear out a lack of perspective on the whole matter of inclusionism vs. deletionism. Focus on improvement, not destruction. I'm sorry to hear about your cat but there are better avenues to vent your sadness. --Jscott 04:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP are you kidding? INC was the largest English PC Games Cracking Group I have ever seen (and I have seen quite a few during the last 15 years). At some point 1991/1992 did they absolutely dominate the PC Warez scene and ALL major english game titles were released by INC first, crushing all competition. Okay, there might have been 1-2 slip-throughs, but that makes it statistically still ALL. This would be like deleting the Brockhaus article if you would compare encyclopedias with PC warez groups. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this group was very notable and should be documented here Yuckfoo 01:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jason Scott's comments. For a collective of pirates that operated solely in the underground in the 1980's and early 1990's I'd say their existence is AMAZINGLY well documented. The efforts of online archivers of bbs culture (underground or public) should be greeted with appreciation, not disdain.--Sodium N4 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.