Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derp (hacker group)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Derp (hacker group)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This group is not notable. --Kobra (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed malformed AfD created 19 November 2014 by . Listing under today's date since almost nobody would've seen it. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I haven't looked through the sources but it seems to be notable, taking a major video game system offline is not easy. Honestly i've never heard of them, but may be a worthwhile keep. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 04:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (banter)  @ 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are numerable sources which this group is the subject of, including this article by The Guardian which states it is behind 'one of the most famous incidents' of cyber attacks. Therefore I believe it is notable. Elspamo4 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GNG is passed; see     for a sampling of coverage.   01:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep significant coverage based on multiple published third-party sources.--DrWho42 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2015 (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.