Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G Force Pakistan


 * 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. This was a close decision, but delete seems like the right choice here, given that, even among the people arguing for keep, there is feeling that the existing article is deeply flawed. I note that User:Gforcepakistan4 is under indef block. If anybody wants to take a shot at writing a new version of this article, which addresses the concerns raised at this AfD, you are free to do so. If you want to start with the existing text, ping me and I'll be glad to undelete this and move it to your user space. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

G Force Pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I believe this hacker group is not very notable, and the article is simply being used as a soapbox by User:Gforcepakistan4. —suriv (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep the article but fully protect it in a non-User:Gforcepakistan4 version. There are sources there. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does have sources, one of which is BBC News. -- Biblio worm  20:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – the article would need to be almost entirely rewritten anyway if it was to be kept, given that only the first three sentences have reliable citations (the rest of the article relies completely on primary sources, and most of it is written in an unencyclopedic tone). And as the nominator mentioned, the article has been repeatedly used as an advertisement by multiple users associated with the group. --V2Blast (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional and likely not notable. -- lTopGunl (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources seems to be correct and points to notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rewrite The sources do not support the claims made, especially those concerning the cyber crime family. The BBC refers to them (and others) as a "nuisance more than threat". Their only "claim to fame" as far as I can see is defacing a NOAA server in 2001, which is insufficient to make them notable. Kleuske (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article really doesn't show any notability and the few sources, in my opinion, amount to trivial coverage. However, I wouldn't be opposed to someone re-creating this article at a later date if they could show notability. demize  (t · c) 18:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy, until the subject meets WP:GNG. BBC source seems the sole reliable one, and existence does not equal notability.  Mini  apolis  23:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: As stated by nominator, "...the article is simply being used as a soapbox by User:Gforcepakistan4". Also, fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy. I find plenty of passing mentions in all kinds of sources; books, journals, new reports etc etc, but only really passing mentions, lumped in with some other hacking groups. I was convinced that there must be something more in-depth out there somewhere, but I found nada, so as things stand I reckon it fails WP:GNG. Userfying it might be an option; I guess there could be some coverage in Pakistan or India that I'm just not picking up, though who you give it to is anyone's guess. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy per others, esp. re current evidence of notability. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite and userfy according to many above. There are some references and mentions of the group concerned, hence I think WP:GNG is probably satisfied at the minimum. But an overhaul is definitely required for the article. I might have a go at this, if time permits.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick google on "G Force" + Pakistan turned up multiple reliable sources. clearly meets GNG even though, at present, this is a woefully inadequate article.ShulMaven (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability established. Improve, don't delete flawed articles. ~KvnG 05:20, 26 November 2014 (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.