Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Hacker 2

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 delete. I realize that there has been a rewrite, but there still is a consensus to delete based on verfiability and notability concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Arab Hacker
please re read original article, it has been updated with a lot of new material as of august 11th

This is a renomination due to the unusual outcome of the first VFD vote. The basis for the original nomination was non-notability. There were 7 Delete votes, plus 3 Merge votes (all of which recommended different pages to which to merge). The presiding admin discarded some of these votes on the grounds of lack of seniority, which apparently upset someone enough to open an RFC. So, let's try this again and see if we can reach a consensus this time. My own vote is delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebug (talk • contribs) 12:41, 7 August 2005
 * Keep . Changed vote; see below; I closed the last VfD, which was inconclusive because most of those voting were too new at the time (this may not be the case if the same people voted again now). The reason for discarding votes was not "lack of seniority" but (mostly) extreme newness--we tend to ignore votes from extremely new voters because of the possibility of sock puppetry.
 * Comment I wasn't doing this in order to attack your original decision; I just wanted to see if consensus could be reached this time. Obviously, what weight to give to the votes of relatively new users is a judgment call. Firebug 02:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * To quote from the RfC: " (delete vote, 28 July) only had one month experience and 15 edits in article space.  (delete vote, 29 July) only had 5 edits prior to 29 June.  (delete vote, 29 July) made 5 edits prior to 27 July.   (delete vote, 29 July via anon IP but signed) had only 14 edits prior to 23 July and to date has made only 13 edits in article space.   (delete vote, 16 July) has voted in literally thousands of VfDs, but has fewer than 100 article space edits, about a score of which are insertion of VfD tags.  Cuervo (merge vote, 15 July) just about scrapes home.   (merge vote, 14 July) had no edits prior to 27 June.  (merge vote, 14 July) had 7 votes prior to 21 June."
 * Now the original nominator for deletion,, has rewritten it.
 * It appears that this lot were mentioned in a FBI report and verifiable statements were cited. --Tony Sidaway Talk 14:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I still don't have seniority, so this may as well be the last time I do this. I have read the article again, it has been re-written, and the re-write is interesting.  However, none of the links show that the group the re-written article puports to exist actually exists.  The first three links  are links to defaced pages, on which we see that hackers who claim to be Arabic have had their way with someone's server.  However, these three links do not prove the existence of the Arab Hacker group, but merely prove the existence of hackers who claim to be Arabic.  There have already been several cases of hackers who claimed to be Chinese or Arabs or what-have-you turning out to be thirteen-year-old script-kiddies, so this literally means nothing.  The fourth link is to an article which mentions the FBI is on the lookout for Arab hackers.  It does not proport that this group, the Arab Hackers group, exists.  Instead, it mentions other groups in specific in the text of the article, and gives an un-cited list-box that has, as one of it's entries, "Arab Hax0rs."  It can be argued that this is one and the same with Arab Hackers, but without a citation on the list-box, it is unclear as to where the list originated from.  As such, the article seems to me to be poorly cited, offers no real proof that the group named "Arab Hackers" the article covers actually exists, and gets a Delete vote from me. Xaa 15:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Have you thought of just cleaning it up? We don't delete the Unicorn and Leprachaun articles just because their existence is disputed by just about everybody on the planet. By the way, the decision to exclude you was based on my personal criteria, so another closer may decide not to exclude your vote. --Tony Sidaway Talk  15:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I *have* cleaned up VfD articles I think are worth the effort of saving from the axe. I've done it twice already.  But, this isn't an article I think is worth saving.  I can find no evidence that convinces me that there is a group of hackers called "Arab Hackers," and the evidence given in the articles does not convince me of their existence, either.  However, if you think it's worth spending the time, feel free to clean it up yourself. =)  Xaa 21:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Group's actual impact, if any, is unverifiable. FCYTravis 17:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn.  Grue  20:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * keep notable enough as an orginization part of a pattern &rarr;uber nemo&rarr; talk edits 20:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete  If notability is based on the ComputerWorld article (from late 2000), then the presumed name of the group is Arab Hax0rs, and the page should be renamed as such.  But a google search for the correct name shows 9 results, mostly the computerworld article and copies of the report the computerworld article is based on.  Eclipsed 22:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xaa. RJFJR 00:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear to be verifiable. --Carnildo 04:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As requested, I have re-read the article. Adding original research to unverifiable material doesn't make for an article worth keeping.  My vote stands. --Carnildo 02:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am changing my vote because I have been convinced by the arguments to delete. --Tony Sidaway Talk  11:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - revote - not notable - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the last "keep" vote on this I will just point out that my reasoning for holding out on this group's notability is that it is a yahoo group with 7000+ people, this link was included in the latest revision of the article, which seems to point to further evidence in its links.   &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 04:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The links the article points to alledge that the FBI is trying to catch them. Somehow, I think the FBI would not be trying to catch them if their members had a Yahoo group, given that the FBI has the right to simply subpoena IP's and e-mail addy's to track the members down.  This seems EXTREMELY unlikely - and is more likely just a group of wannabes.  If they really were who the FBI was looking for, it seems to me they'd already be caught and jailed.  The existence of the Yahoo group called "Arab Hackers" only proves the existence of a yahoo group called "Arab Hackers" - it does not prove that the Yahoo group and the alledged international criminal conspiracy/hackers group are in any way related. Xaa 21:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment http://www.zone-h.org/en/defacements/filter/filter_defacer=Arab+Hackers/ Samuraisam 22:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortuantely, that doesn't mean anything. http://www.zone-h.org/en/defacements/filter/filter_defacer=George+Bush/  Looks like the President's been naughty, too. ;)  The key is not "Can I find defacement by people who call themselves Arab Hackers and claim to be on a Jihad," the key is "can I find something OTHER than what could be done by a twelve-year-old who might think it was cool to call himself an Arab Hacker on a Jihad?"  For example, a US Government site that lists the group as being one that's sought after for extradition/interrogation/arrest. Xaa 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to know what kind of evidence would prove this? There is no way more definitive evidence could be produced unless you want some sort of a video. "a day in the life of Arab Hacker". Maybe some satellite footage. I say that adequate evidence has been provided. there are literally hundreds of pages with the "fuck U.S.A. and israel" message so obviously, unless its a mere coincedence, they are connected. Samuraisam 04:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment As I said above: For example, a US Government site that lists the group as being one that's sought after for extradition/interrogation/arrest. I can find evidence that George Bush is defaming websites on zone-H.org.  They only keep track of the names, they have no way of verifying if that really IS an Arab Hacker group or just one kid, or if the president is really vandalizing web-pages.  Yes, I acknowledge that it's not unreasonable to presume what you're suggesting.  However, we're not allowed to presume things when we write articles.  If we're going to assert that a secret hacker group exists, we have to offer solid proof it exists that can't be explained as just one kid with a computer. Xaa 04:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. No Account 00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability and verifiability are rigorously established; this sort of thing can easily become a "Here's my l33t group" article or a bunch of weak speculation (which is what it is now). Note to closing admin: I'm watching this article, and I'll change this vote myself if necessary. Treat as delete unless I change it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 14 August 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.