Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blizzhackers


 * 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 of the debate was delete. — Apr. 29, '06 [11:46] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

Blizzhackers


With Alexa rating of 157,855, fails WP:WEB despite creator's laudable intentions on talk page. Daniel Case 15:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: This AfD page was also vandalized, but, I think, by someone trying to get at the creator, not the creator himself, since the anon in question also vandalized the article. He's been warned.

Daniel Case 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Remember people, just like the Wiki pages on small cults who commit 30 man suicides(as extreme as an example that might be), this is for information purpous only, on the history of a site that strongly effected many of Blizzard_Entertainment's top games. Yes it was a hacking site, but it niether supports or denotes it, being unbiased, and is completely factual.  Also this page is not meant to support any hacks or link to any.  So far Im getting the idea that people here think its supporting it, and that being their reason for deletion.  This is simply not the case. Salgat 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Diablo 2 Hacking site. Off with their heads. Grafikm_fr 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Undecided have any of the big names posted there? any significant cheats? Kotepho 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment.the phrase "such as the TPPK which enhanced dueling or player killing." is enough for an RfD. It is not enhancing, it's ruining the game. Grafikm_fr 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that phrase is not a reason for deletion. POV is not a problem that requires deletion.  Also, your stance that it is ruining the game is soapboxing in the same sense. Kotepho 17:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is common sense, not soapboxing. Anyway, the rfd was made (and not by me), we'll let the votes decide.. ^_^ Grafikm_fr 17:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There have been many significant big name 'hackers' posting on BH, including mousepad (of D2 maphack fame), the makers of the prolific d2hackit program, the creator(s) of d2jsp and other 'bots', and other programs that have significantly affected the game. The forum has enough history and has been home to enough various programs and people who had a major impact, for better or worse, on Blizzard's games, that it deserves some mention.  If imageboards like 4chan and forum sites like SomethingAwful or LUElinks get their own articles, certainly a board that has had over 200k registered users should be permitted a mention.  A small disclaimer on this rant, I do have a slight bias in favour of keeping it as I am an staff member there, but I feel that this does not detract from my points.- Flaming_cows aka -Cthulhon 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I actually might have posted there back in the day. I don't really see this meeting WP:WEB or WP:V/WP:RS though. fhtagn Kotepho 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: nn forum site - no indication that it meets WP:WEB. --Hetar 18:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hetar. -Objectivist-C 19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep see supporting comment above. -Cthulhon 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment': This user's sole edits are to the article and this discussion. Daniel Case 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Does that detract from my points in any way? That seems like an ad hominem attack rather than a reason to not keep the article.  And for the record, I have made other edits to various articles as an anonymous contributor.--Cthulhon 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * When it comes to assessing the community consensus on whether this article will be kept, the history of the contributors to this discussion is relevant. Those users who pop up in response to the discussion (usually arguing "keep") are not considered to have truly put in the time on the project that would make their opinion worthwhile, and frequently their votes are discounted or discarded altogether. This is well stated in our deletion policies, in order to avoid ballot-stuffing using sock- or meatpuppets.
 * That you have made edits under other IPs is ... well, that's nice. Since we have no way of verifying this as you didn't start an account until today, we can't really say one thing or the other about your credibility on that basis. As it is we have no way of knowing what your agenda is here (If you want to be taken more seriously in this sort of discussion in the future, by all means edit under your current account and build up a history). Daniel Case 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair enough, but I still feel that you haven't responded adequatly to any of my points and I feel that history and reputation should not be the sole factor in deciding this matter.--Cthulhon 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Blizzhackers is a well known website. New users will want some information about it before using it, to make sure that the content available is trustworthy.
 * Comment Blizzhackers is far from being about 'hacking' despite the name. Its a community of relatively good, knowledgable people, and a rich source of information, on programming, graphics and general life problems. In my honest opinion, in relation to gaming, Blizzhackers is one of the more important pages on the internet. Deleting it would be a travesty - Jake aka -JsRide


 * Keep agree with supporting comments. -JsRide
 * Comment:This user's sole edits have been to this discussion as well. Daniel Case 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Blizzhackers has been around for many years now, and has had a major impact on Blizzard Entertainments games. Many (in)famous diablo 2 hackers have posted on these forums, such as Mousepad, Netter, Rishodi, Darawk, and the like. Whether or not people agree of disgree with game hacking shouldn't really be an issue I think, as, either way, it HAS had a profound effect on the game. It has also gone through many changes, and has faced legal issues with blizzard and still come through. Also, similar groups, such as myg0t have a wiki, although blizzhackers has probably been the home to many more hack releases than it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSagle (talk • contribs)
 * Above is user's first and only edit. Daniel Case 02:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Has a large number of users, and well known programmers. Has had a big impact on many games esp. Diablo II. - stuck_fugu aka - Nevkeet
 * Delete unless shown to meet WP:WEB. 129.81.72.204 02:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Blizzhackers has been the subject of published work independant of the site. Specifically, it has been discussed on TechTV, with on of its more notable members appearing personally as a guest.--Cthulhon 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a nice claim, do you have a citation for that? --Hetar 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Here is the inevitable post on their forums: --Hetar 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Followup: And the last person on the thread actually took the time to look at WP:WEB and realized it didn't meet the criteria there. Daniel Case, 02:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment See my comment on the directly above delete vote as for why I believe it does meet WP:WEB. For the record, I read over the entire page for WP:WEB as well as the other pages about deletion that I could find.--Cthulhon 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And I don't see how your assertions, assuming you provide adequate sourcing for them, meet the WP:WEB criteria. Those say nothing about whether renowned hackers hang out there, or whether it's had an impact on some company's games, or been sued, or had its creator appear on TV, have anything to do with whether it's been written about indepedently, won awards, or hostred independently of the creators. Has it been written about in the gaming press? That would help satisfy the first criterion. If I were you that's what I'd be busy looking for.
 * Now I just Googled on the site name. I was told there were 114,000 or so hits, but after a mere 48 or so I ran out as it told me most of what was left was similar to what I'd already seen. And most of that was stuff posted on gaming forums, which doesn't meet our sourcing standards.
 * So, end result, I'm not encouraged unless you can find something I didn't. Daniel Case 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Now included in Blizzhackers is a media reference to one of the members of Blizzhackers, from a reputable network, TechTV. I wish I could provide more media references in concern of the WP:WEB but I dont have the time to search this up.--Salgat 23:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But that's a case for the notability of the member, not the site itself. See above. Daniel Case 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please take into consideration that since this is an Online Community, it relys soley on it's members in order to do anything. Blizzhackers has always been a host of files made by the members working together, so any effect its members had in relation to the site, that being a forum, is an effect that Blizzhackers as a community has made.  --Salgat 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But do those people just do stuff at Blizzhackers, or elsewhere? If the former, then the credit for any impact they had goes to them and not to the site, I'm afraid. It would be like crediting the owner of the office building you work out of for your company's success. Daniel Case 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Undecided I believe that if sites like SomethingAwful and LUElinks can have their own Wikipedia entries, that Blizzhackers should as well. However, I'm undecided on the matter. I don't want to say that it should stay without providing any proof, but I do personally believe it should stay. It has been host to some of the greatest and most controversial hacks against Blizzard Entertainment software to-date, including having not only its owner, but more than a few notable members threatened with litigation if they did not do what Blizzard Entertainment wanted them to. As far as Alexa ratings and traffic reports go, please bear in mind that the website was on a 5+ month hiatus when Blizzard attempted to take the site down due to WoW server emulation. Alexa rankings at this point mean next to nothing to the notability of the site. Also to note, if you do a Google search of the website's new name, Edge of Nowhere(using the search query "Edge of Nowhere forum", to remove the invalid results relating to various other things), you come up with 4,720,000 results. As a last note, I realize that I'm not a registered Wikipedia user. This is because I have never seen a need to register. I've never found any serious edits I've wanted to make to any artices, and in fact I still haven't seen a need to register. -lord2800 -- 67.134.133.216 03:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Consider Blizzhackers a community that helps develop programs through the help of eachother. Without Blizzhackers, many of the bots, including the Mephbot mentioned, would likely not exist.  If anything, we can credit Blizzhackers for the works of it's members since Blizzhackers is where many of these members learned, discussed, and created their bots.  An analogy could be a Blizzhacker member making a bot compared to a member or team of a University making an invention.  Through the help of the University, they are able to get ideas and create this invention, and owe much credit to the University for thier aid.--Salgat 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable, and ask them not to take it personally. Fagstein 05:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Undecided I am in agreement with the comments of 'lord2800' above. Throughout Wikipedia, there are several articles relating to Blizzard and their games which mention hacks and programs that have propogated on, and in some cases originated on, BlizzHackers. If you talk to any Blizzard or Vivendi employee, I seriously doubt that they would consider BlizzHackers to be "non-notable"; rather, I imagine that they would respond quite to the contrary. On the other hand, I can see that the current BlizzHackers article does not meet the WP:WEB criteria, and although I have been an active, contributing member of BlizzHackers for several years now, I cannot immediately think of a single incident that would prove its notability. It seems that the media tends to avoid mentioning sites that originated with the purpose of game hacking, and for good reason. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that on the subject of Blizzard games, and specifically hacks for these games, BlizzHackers has been one of the most popular sites, if not the most popular site, for the duration of its existence. I would like to add, before someone else points out this fact for me, that this is indeed my first edit as a registered user. I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, but it had not until now come to my attention that I even had the option to register as a user here. If this article does stay, someone needs to take the time to improve it greatly. Rishodi 08:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Omnibus response to above and other comments: I would first like to take the time to thank the supporters of a Blizzhackers article for remaining civil and keeping their cool; given the way deletion discussions often shake out when people start coming to them from other sites this restraint is admirable and deserves commendation here. It augurs strongly in favor of an unprejudiced deletion.


 * But I still do not see this site as having met the criteria. Bottom line for me (and, I think, other long-time editors here) is that we need to see some media coverage.


 * I am struck in favor of notability by the lawsuit Blizzard filed against the original site that shut it down for some time, which many of you have pointed to. This does not seem like a common occurrence to me, even though I am not really plugged into the gaming community. Is there coverage of this lawsuit somewhere? Where were the legal papers filed? Are they accessible online? If I get more detail on this and it is reflected in the original article, I might well be persuaded to change my vote and withdraw the nom as long as other veteran editors are satisfied. Daniel Case 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Unfortunately, I have a feeling that legal papers were never filed, as Robert Laverick(the current owner of the site) settled out of court and before any legal procedings were attempted. Lawyers flew over to his home, showed up at his doorstep, threatened to sue, and he cooperated(which lead ultimately, but not directly, to a 5-month downtime). I'll see if I can find any non-trivial information about the potential lawsuit, though. Oh, and thanks for the compliments about the civility, I think the fact that this is Wikipedia has scared away most of the newbies from making edits(or they haven't figured out how, heh). -lord2800 -- 67.134.133.205 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dang. Something like that of course cannot be verified unless Mr. Laverick has written about for some reliable source. It seemed so promising. Daniel Case 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I have read all the above comments and agree with them for the most part. I think Blizzhackers is a very important part of video game culture both online and off.  It has had an impact on not only Blizzard Entertainment, but on those who play the games with Blizzard produced.  I am willing to bet that a large majority (At least in 2002-2004) of Diablo 2 players have heard and about and maybe even visited Blizzhackers.com.  Most everyone has been affected by Blizzhackers' members and their game-altering hacks and bots.  This hacking was so widespread that it started to get the attention of real-world companies.  The cable network TechTV even aired a edpisode of "The Screensavers" which interviewed the notorious Syadasti, a member of Blizzhackers.  On the show, he demonstrates his MephBot, Tetris and other D2Hackit modules and makes reference to Blizzhackers.com.  A copy of this clip can be found on TechTV's website:  http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/features/41040/Play_Tetris_Within_Diablo_II.html  Surley this mention alone constitutes a place on Wikipedia. -Clark3934 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User's first contribution. Fagstein 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I basically created the entries on Rush_(band) and its related articles, mind you. I have had this account since 2003 and have made numerous edits as an unnamed contributor. -Clark3934 03:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You should consider having your edits reassigned. Fagstein 03:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As of now, unremarkable article and organization. Not notable. Gold Stur 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * weak keep The TechTv clip basically makes it meet WP:WEB, barely. JoshuaZ 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 10:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Almost too close to call, but just falls short of sufficient notability for an article. Some influence in regards to World of Warcraft and Diablo 2 but I don't see how its affected the gaming community in a profound manner as some have claimed. A split decision if you will, but still standing by delete.--Cini 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Update Added another reference of EoN/Blizzhackers from a reputable website. So far thats 2 reputable references to Blizzhackers, which means it meets the requirements.--Salgat 22:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nerdcruft. incog 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Nerdy, perhaps, but whether it is "cruft" depends solely on your viewpoint. You might want to check out articles such as Fhqwhgads or Alt.fan.warlord, which have been allowed to stay despite being, in my opinion, just as "nerdy" and "crufty" as the subject of this article, if not more so. Believe it or not, these types of things have achieved mass popularity within certain communities. Rishodi 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * keep please it is notable calling something nerdcruft is rude Yuckfoo 04:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I(well, not me, but it was provided to me) found a Slashdot article where Blizzhackers(Edge of Nowhere) is explicitly linked to in the article text. Hope this helps in deciding whether or not this should be deleted. Also, to note, if the article is kept, users who have more knowledge about the website will be the primary users contributing. The current article is very poorly done because it was pretty much just plopped together before any of the site staff had any chance to have input. -lord2800 67.134.133.216 05:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the entire text of the abovementioned Slashdot "article" so linked: "Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Jul 19, '05 11:11 AM from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.   Over the course of this morning several people have sent me tidbits talking about an exploit on WoW that allows duping of items. Apparently forum posts are being removed on official channels, but there are a few places where you can learn about the exploit and see screenshot evidence. In equally exciting news, my Rogue on Azjol-nerub is probably 2 hours away from 60 and since Blizzard will undoubtedly fix this bug soon, I'll have to finance my epic mount the old fashioned way!"  The italicized section is the link to the Blizzhackers' forum.  Several of these psuedononymous tidbits get linked per day.  I'll leave it to you folks whether the above, in your opinion, constitutes significant media coverage.  RGTraynor 15:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you check the article, that link was added as a reference a few days ago, so you're just a bit late. Have you looked at the most recent version of the article? There is obviously a lot of room for improvement, but nevertheless it's currently much better than it was originally. Rishodi 08:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' Thryduulf 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now going with Keep per TechTV clip and Slashdot article. Meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Delete per RGTRaynor. JoshuaZ 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. meets WP:WEB, I suppose. Mystache 13:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 48 unique G-hits?  A poor Alexa ranking?  Sounds like the assertions of how much of a giant in gaming this group is are badly inflated.  Beyond which, it does not meet WP:WEB on the strength of that article.  If people follow the link to the article, you'll see it was just a citation of a gamecheat linking to the original finding.  To quote from WP:WEB - "This criterion excludes: Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores."  This is trivial content, folks.  RGTraynor 15:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per failure to meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per RGTraynor --Astrokey 44 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Nearly notable by google hits, but not by Alexa.  bikeable (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to the above: You apparently did not read all of the information on this page, or did not believe it. I quote: As far as Alexa ratings and traffic reports go, please bear in mind that the website was on a 5+ month hiatus when Blizzard attempted to take the site down due to WoW server emulation. Alexa rankings at this point mean next to nothing to the notability of the site. Also to note, if you do a Google search of the website's new name, Edge of Nowhere(using the search query "Edge of Nowhere forum", to remove the invalid results relating to various other things), you come up with 4,720,000 results. Blizzhackers reached its peak just before Blizzard threatened legal action and the site was taken offline. Since then, its popularity as the respawned "Edge of Nowhere" has never been close to what it used to be. I encourage you all to look at Alexa's daily traffic rate graph which spans the 5-year existence of the site. As you can clearly see, in early 2005 the site had a peak daily traffic rank of under the 10,000 mark and was on a steady incline. You can also note on the graph the point at which the site was shut down, and the relatively poor traffic rankings after that point. I hope some of you reconsider, or at least make a delete vote based on better criteria than Alexa ratings, as I have shown the current ranking of 149,905 to be a false indicator of lack of notability. Rishodi 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Beats me where you got nearly five million results from Googling "Edge of Nowhere forum"; I got three unique hits from the same.   RGTraynor 19:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, "Edge of Nowhere" forum gets 75,000, but many many of these are unrelated. it's really hard to tell.  it does appear pretty close to googlish notability, which is why I voted "weak delete".  "Blizzhackers" is a more unique word, and actually has quite a few hits... I may have to reconsider, although it takes a lot for a gaming forums page to achieve notability in my book.  bikeable (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Decent Alexa traffic suggests that a site is active, but no one who's actually looked at the forum would deny that; they've many registered users and many posts. The problem is that these folks' claim to notability is in significantly impacting the gaming world, and I just haven't seen any genuine evidence of that.  I want slightly more than a handful of unique G-hits and a fleeting link on a Slashdot gamers' newswire.  RGTraynor 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By nature online fora have many more google hits, so the level of google hits that could argue for notability increases. See Cruft multiple. JoshuaZ 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete -- with comment: it's not because Wikipedia has articles about similar and perhaps even less notable sites that this should just get a free pass. There will alway be a (too great) number of articles here that really shouldn't be, but that should not be justification to add more of them -- Hirudo 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete as barely notable —porges(talk) 03:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- based on above posts, IMHO there is an insufficient consensus for deletion once the Cabal-ist votes (based on the simple premise that ordinary people should not get a mention on Wiki) are given their due weight -- Disguised pseudonym


 * Delete. Tiny, irrelevant self-aggrandising web community, apparently consisting entirely of ballot stuffers. Terminate with extreme prejudice. -- GWO


 * Comment. Unfortunately thus far most of these comments people have made have been because of ignorence or prejudice.  The ract remains that Blizzhackers has been referenced by multiple reputable media sources, has over 100,000 members with millions of posts, and has legal history with Blizzard Entertainment.  You would think these facts would be suffice for being in Wikipedia.  And to all you who state about the Alexa Rating or the importance, please do some research before you post, ignorence doesn't help.  And do you have any reason to state why this is "self-aggrandising"?  And if even it was for promotional reasons, does that subtract from the fulfilled requirements Blizzhackers has provided(not to state that it is)?.  And yes, if you feel that this is a ballot stuffing effort, ignore the amount of posts and just look at the content and reasons of each comment, whic is what really matters. See here for how "small" Edge of Nowhere, formerly Blizzhackers, really is.  http://www.big-boards.com/board/351/-- Salgat
 * No personal attacks please. Also, user's contributions are all to this article and AfD. Fagstein 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete group-vanity, fails WP:WEB.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per RGTraynor. The media section is pathetic, and there's no way it gets around WP:V or WP:NOR, let alone WP:WEB. Melchoir 07:34, 29 April 2006 (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.