Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pro and anti-warez arguments


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

List of pro and anti-warez arguments

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been around for a few years with tags on it indicating that it is a poor article. Very few sources have been provided, and the majority of the arguments appear to have simply been placed unverified, probably as original opinions of the editors that have made the edit. The debate itself is something that is unencylopedic, and is something that cannot, and will not, become neutral. Furthermore, the concept of "pro-warez" doesn't seem logical in the first place. It could be understood that someone could be "anti-non-free-software" but being "pro warez" is similar to being "pro carjacking" or "pro murder." I feel that, and history has proven that, this article will remain biased, opinionated, and uncited, and this indicates that this article has little value to Wikipedia as a whole. Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hyperbolic and inflammatory analogies between the copyright infringement of software and violent crime are extremely unhelpful. However, the article's currently largely unsourced state, existing for years, is problematic. In the absence of serious improvement in references, delete per WP:NOR. Andrea105 (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - WP:OR / WP:SYN. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Article as it stands is WP:OR. Furthermore, the  article is irredeemably unencyclopedic -- a list of opinions like this  one is bound to diverge into an unintegrated hodgepodge of points of  view.  —  æk Talk  06:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * delete - pointless opinion piece which cannot be redeemed: there's no shortage of places you can go if you want to read people's opinions or contribute your own. Wikipedia is not the place. JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2009 (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.