Talk:Crack intro

Keep this article
I agree with the other editors who support keeping this article. It provides good encylopedic information on a notable subject. I oppose merging or deleting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it fails WP:V. No evidence was actually provided to show it was notable. Simply claiming it is without providing any sources doesn't actually make it notable. They've managed to find all of 2 trivial mentions of crack intros which sources all of 2 sentences, which means 99% of this is unsourced which means it can't stay here. Numerous people looked for days to try and find sources to defend it and that was all they could come up with. Unless you can provide sources to satisfy the policy requirements the article can't stay the way it is.--Crossmr (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This article can help establisjh notability, but since it quotes Wikipedia we shouldn't use it as a source I think. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it can't be used as a citation it can't be used to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * An other, but in Swedish:
 * If you read through the AFD, you'll see that other sources do exist. In Crossmr's reality, they don't though. - hahnch e n 18:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then demonstrate them. Also read WP:NOTE under trivial coverage. The only 2 sources provided during afd (one in the afd one added to the article) contained a single sentence about crack intros. Neither of those are "significant coverage of the subject by reliable third party sources independent of the subject". Perhaps you should spend more time finding sources instead of trying to make personal attacks. A piracy based organization isn't really independent of the subject of something else also related to piracy, nor is it significant coverage of cracks intros. Its an interview with some guy named dubmood in which he seems to answer 1 question which talks about crack intros a couple times and name drops it a couple more times. Significant coverage has been traditionally held on wikipedia to mean a full article actually dedicated to the subject in question.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article contains several external links dedicated to crack intros. While they can't be used as sources they demonstrate that this is a notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No they don't, they're all self-published, fan pages, group pages, etc. none of those are capable of establishing notability. If a site can't be used a reliable source it can't establish notability. Even some sites which can be used as a reliable source can't establish notability (primary sources, secondary sources not independent of the subject, press releases and college/university news papers).--Crossmr (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to the in-line mentions, there's more than that in the afd. Maybe you should spend more time looking at those sources, instead of patronising everyone by repeating definitions to everyone who disagreed with you as you did in the afd. - hahnch e n 17:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What Afd were you reading? This was the only reference provided during the afd: . This was the only reference added to the article during the afd . Both of those are trivial mentions and do not establish notability. In external links section none of them are reliable sources and can't be used to establish notability. People claiming notability without showing any proof doesn't count for notability either. So where exactly are all these sources that were provided to show notability? The two links provided in this discussion, 1 is not a reliable source and the other one is 1) not independent of the subject, 2) reliability is uncertain, 3)its still not significant coverage of the subject, so even if 1 and 2 didn't matter, the most important thing of all is that it doesn't provide any significant coverage of the subject. Those are all the links that have been provided. Outside of a couple random sentences in a couple reliaible sources there has been zero provided. If someone provided links somewhere, they certainly haven't pointed them out on this talk page, the afd or the article. In addition to that being the only link provided in the AfD, Neuro who was arguing for keep flat out admitted that he couldn't find any sources to actually support it. So the only thing the AfD proved was that some people like it but can't find appropriate sources to support the article per WP:V and WP:RS.--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

merge
I just want to support the merge idea put forth by User:Crossmr. A lot of people in the AFD supported it, and it strikes me as a decent compromise. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged into Demoscene. Merging it into Software Cracking doesn't really make any sense. fintler (talk)


 * I say NO to the proposed merge. It would be like merging x86 into Computer, or to use a more esoteric example, it'd be like merging Operating Thetan into Scientology. Cracktros are a distinct topic independent of the demoscene. People may come across cracktros without knowing anything about the demoscene. The actual "demos" of the demoscene have become distinct and separate from cracktros (they're more a form of art... and more benign in that they're no longer strictly related to software pirating). Demos have their own article, and cracktros therefore deserve their own article. Someday this article will become more than just a stub. Fuzzform (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet here we are 2 years later without a shred of notability added to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. --Ondertitel (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging into Demoscene is a very bad idea. Demo (computer programming) would have been the better choice. I removed the merge proposal tags because this topic is notable enough to have its own place on Wikipedia. --Ondertitel (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)