Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacklisted! 411


 * 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 delete. While there may be truth to the argument that being a "fringe" publication makes finding third-party references difficult, that does not mean that verifiability can be overridden. The few sources mentioned - along with the Blacklisted site itself, which can be found at the Internet Archive - do not meet the criteria of reliable sources, unfortunately, whereas other hacking-related articles are able to point to references that do (e.g. Cult of the Dead Cow, L0pht). Until such time that these sources can be found, this article can't be considered to be more than speculative memory. Tijuana Brass 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted! 411

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable sourcing. Stub content. Tagged for cleanup and sources w/ no improvements for several months. Spent 20 minutes looking for sources, found blog pages, zine catalogs, but no news coverage or cites in reliable sources. Prepared to be wrong about this (I know this zine actually exists), but I think I'm right and this doesn't belong in WP. If not, it should be trivial to fix. --- tqbf 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Would speedy delete but I don't think there's a category for not-notable magazines. --Malcolmxl5 01:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is very notable within the circle of hacking as the only other printed hacking magazine on store shelves besides 2600. Their web site disappeared earlier this year, so it is difficult to verify.  I think that they are relevant in a historic context at this time.  Many notable hackers and articles were published in this magazine and I think a record of its history (and controversy) is worth keeping.  Bad Monk3y 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the previous comment is from the original author of the article. --- tqbf 22:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I will not argue that the article requires a complete overhaul. However, it cannot be said that this magazine was not notable. Magazines of no notability do not secure international distribution deals. This one did. In fact us here in Ottawa (Canada) could pick up our issues of this American publication at a regular local magazine shop. Furthermore, if you were to ask any old school hacker, of the like that attends HOPE/Notacon conferences and the like, more often than not they would be aware of this magazine. So while the quality of the article should be in question, the notability of the subject matter most certainly should not.--ISeal 17:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (Continuing from the Above...) A secondary issue are the apparent lack of sources. This criticism is inherently invalid. This magazine is part of a fringe culture. As such, it falls outside the scope of regular mainstream magazines, newspapers, and journals. It doesn't matter how important it is, it's not something that would be picked up by your mainstream media. You won't get traditional sources to cite. The issues here are no different than covering, say, a fringe punk rock magazine of the eighties. Furthermore, this is before the age where online independent journalism picked up. To require citations is to fall prey to what I refer to "imbecile beaurocracy", where destructive actions are carried out on the pure basis of an adherence to an impossible standard. --ISeal 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this user has almost no edits prior to the AfD. --- tqbf  22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment response to previous two arguments - notability is established with reliable secondary sources, not with anecdotes about "old school hackers". One argument brought up punk zines: compare news hits for MRR with Blacklisted!. --- tqbf  22:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Above Comment On the above basis, you will find insufficient substantiation to justify articles on pretty much all of pre web-journalism fringe culture. Simply said, not everything out there has been cited by mainstream media, and this is especially true of fringe culture. I do find it puzzling however that you yourself would admit to having heard of this magazine, only to deny the notion of its popularity through this deletion request. And oh yes: this article was one of the first things that grabbed my attention. Feel free to discredit me on that point however much you wish. --ISeal 01:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fringiness" doesn't trump WP:VER, WP:RS, or WP:N. I think "Blacklisted" is just hacker-cruft. ISeal, since you're new here, you may want to evaluate your arguments against WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSA, WP:OTHERSTUFF, and, in particular, WP:LOCALFAME. RSnake's blog is notable to web hackers, but doesn't meet WP:N. --- tqbf  18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. Even if it's a fringe magazine, it should be possible to provide some reliable sources if it is in any way notable. That does not seem to be the case here. Terraxos 17:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is no doubt that it needs to be cleaned up but I do believe that "Blacklisted! 411" is notable. It is mentioned by Def Con's web page with the text "Blacklisted 411 has become not only one of the oldest of the hacker quarterlies available today, but has positioned itself as the top selling print magazine in its market."   Does anyone know of where we could get the actual circulation numbers?  It's rumored to have a circulation of 100k per quarter but of course I would like to see a reference that states that.  I understand the concern and importance of meeting the letter of WP:NOT but I also strongly believe in WP:IGNORE.  Inclusion of this article adds to the substance of Wikipedia, though not in it's current state, and it should be allowed to persist.  I would be more then happy to expand upon it in the immediate future should it please consensus. Robert Stone, Jr. 12:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, uh, seeing as how the zine no longer exists, I'm going to suggest that the Def Con web site is not exactly a reliable source. --- tqbf  13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. Valid. Kingturtle 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Robert Stone's source is a more-than-a-year-old paid advertisement; it is not an actual Def Con endorsement of Blacklisted. --- tqbf  17:31, 15 November 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.