Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hijacking Guild


 * 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. JeremyA 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hijacking Guild
'''Admins will take into account if certain editors do not have many edits before voting on this AfD. So creating an account to vote or using multiple IPs will not help. For further info, please read Wikipedia is not a democracy and WP:SOCK'''

This is a page about a nn group of spammers. It seems similar to GNAA but less notable DeleteCastAStone 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. I have more google hits than these guys.  Why not delete the GNAA while you're at it? -- Vary | Talk 01:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep How bout no, what does it matter to you? We are spread over various sites so I really doubt that you have more "hits", not that it matters in any case. Way to kill freedom of speech... &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 172.145.15.152 (talk • contribs)  later substituted his/her own signature in place of the unsigned notice; it was CleverScreenName's third edit, the first two being to his/her user page.
 * Keep because Vary and CastAStone need a life and need to learn to leave other people alone &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.163.101.11 (talk • contribs)  later substituted his/her own signature in place of the unsigned notice; it was ScarfaceEvaStar's first edit.
 * Delete per nom. Cyberevil 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow - 43 whole google hits! Delete.  Blackcats 04:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete gren グレン 04:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because we have much of a right to tell about ourselves as this group of software crackers Phrozen Crew does..way to hand out "liberty and justice for all" &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 72.146.65.79 (talk • contribs)
 * You have every right to self-promote, but it doesn't follow that you have a right to do it on Wikipedia. You submitted an article, community consensus is tending towards deletion. These things happen. Try again later -- when your Google hits aren't in the lower three digits, you're not bereft of mainstream media coverage, or you're otherwise objectively noteworthy. In the meantime, if you're passionate about free speech and all that, why not improve other Wikipedia articles? Adrian Lamo 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep because this is supposed to be an impartial encyclapedia. They havent done any harm, so there is no reason to censor them.  Freedom of speech dosent just imply freedom from government censorship, but also from censorship by a few offended individuals.  &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 205.188.117.70 (talk • contribs)
 * Harmless, non-noteworthy topics are still non-noteworthy. Even if "freedom of speech" guaranteed everyone a Wikipedia article, it's not so much that anyone here is "offended" by your work as it is that it's "not relevant" to the vast majority of users outside GameSpot.
 * Adrian Lamo 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep,Freedom of speech.This is not a dictatorship so let them stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.2.16 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 January 2006
 * Delete, per nominator. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, forumcruft. "Freedom of speech" does not mean complete anarchy. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 09:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually yes it can, read the Bill of Rights sometime, or in fact go to elementary school - either one will work
 * question couldnt care less one way or another whether this stays or not, but whats the difference between this group and the Phrozen Crew they talk about? IE why have one and not the other Jcuk 10:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Elementary. Phrozen Crew is/were (don't know if they're gone or not) famous. This lot isn't. --Agamemnon2 12:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Elementary if you know about such things. I dont. Never heard of either of 'em. Jcuk 16:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 10:44Z 
 * Delete it reads like the braggings of a group of school children. Of no use or notability doktorb | words 11:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. And please, Meatpuppets, leave this alone. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I have a better idea, nn groups meet CSD A7 =) Werdna648T/C\@ 12:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete under the expanded CSD A7. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 14:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In no way are we affilated with racist or any type of 'hate' groups, many people we know consist of different races, religions, and sexual preferences. We have our page up for a damn day and a big group of people jump to conclusions, we are not bad people at all...you are &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.163.101.11 (talk • contribs) -- Vary | Talk 22:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if "bad people" were the criteria for deletion, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia. I'm sure there's a list of [something] groups somewhere on Wikipedia that you can add your name to, eh? G'day.
 * Adrian Lamo 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, delete, delete, delete, delete. Tim Pierce 14:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JIP. Dan 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non notable hacker orginazation Deathawk 19:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep We are not hackers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.155.106.168 (talk • contribs) 20:23, January 2, 2006
 * I really don't care weather or not your hackers the fact of the matter is your group is Non Notable if it weren't than people outside of your group would be defending you as it is your the only ones defending this page, and I think that speaks volumes about the notability of this group.-Deathawk 03:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable fancruft. Kevin 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sure the architect of this AOL IP-originated article [not that there's anything wrong with that] feels strongly about the topic, but the details and twists of message forum politics are very rarely noteworthy. Also, if you've been in existence since "mid 2005" in the first days of 2006, you're better off not mentioning dates at all. Seriously guys. Even if I take you at face value and accept that you aren't 'hackers' or 'terrorists' you're still not noteworthy outside of GameSpot. That said, you produced an extended article on a non-noteworthy topic -- have you considered honing your writing on other articles? Also, cite your sources :) Adrian Lamo 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Liontamer 01:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. --OntarioQuizzer 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, this wasn't AOL IP-originated.Hijacker 04:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're right. My mistake. Adrian Lamo 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable/vanity. Fagstein 07:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you people seem so concerned about Google hits just put in some of the names we mention and they will add up possibly past the triple digits CSN
 * Btw I get 18,900 alone - -CSN
 * 344 - a-man27, 90 - ScarfaceEvaStar , 15,800 - C-GHOST , 1,830 - pegasus seiya , 222 - Lu_Bu01 , 237 - nobuggs CSN
 * Delete per nom. Stifle 02:27, 7 January 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.