Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phone Losers of America


 * 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 keep (no consensus). Even though I suspect a lot of sockpuppeteering or meatpuppeteering here, Alkivar, Kappa, et. al. have provided good reasons to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Phone Losers of America
Unverified, non-notable. Delete Ardenn 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP: PLA has been within the phreaking comminity for atleast 10 years, If phrack has and entry why not pla.


 * Keep If the GNAA has a page, the PLA should have a page, since nearly everything the GNAA has done the PLA did (although the PLA did it about a decade ago, was much funnier, and was far more original). If you think there's unverifiable information on the page, delete it, because everything I added was cited. It's true that there are vandals adding random garbage to the page, but that doesn't mean it's a candidate for deletion. If that were true, the Mohammed Cartoons article would've been deleted weeks ago. --Tokachu 22:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I vote for keeping the page. The PLA has a highly visited sight on the web and is one of the funniest groups out there.
 * Keep Some people might search Wikipedia for phone phreaking. In this case, there should be some mention of the PLA.
 * Strong keep. PLA are notable, though the article might need some work.  And as for the notice to anonymous editors, well, I thought this was an open community. --Myles Long 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't forum space. Yes it is a community of editors. Ardenn 22:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a community of editors, provided they edit in good faith. Unregistered editors are capable of good faith edits. As for the AfD at hand, can you shed some more insight into your nomination, please? --Myles Long 22:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all small phreaking groups. Get a myspace page, Wikipedia is not a free hosting provider Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 23:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refer to my "GNAA vs. PLA" argument, as stated above. --Tokachu 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. PLA is not a "small phreaking group," nor is the article being used for free hosting. They have a site. --Myles Long 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why does the article describe them as a "small phreaking group"? And if you want to nominate GNAA for deletion as equally non-notable, you are free to do so. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable.  Ikkyu2 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pending some verification of the claims of media attention. Which articles? When? This sorely needs specifics. Additionally, is there a wikipedia policy against linking to pages describing howtos of illegal actions (i.e. credit card fraud)? Ziggurat 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pending verification of the media attention claims? There is a whole page on the site that contains newspaper clippings, magazine clippings, video and links to articles about the PLA.  The CNBC thing just happened 2 months ago.  You don't think that clip of CNBC will eventually be up there?  PLA has consistently been featured on TV, newspaper and radio for more than 10 years now.  PLA is more than just a website. --RBCP 12:02, 14 February 2006
 * Then they should be added and referenced in the article, not alluded to vaguely. And the information in the article should be verified through such sources - just because it is "mentioned" isn't enough for Wikipedia verifiability requirements. We can't guarantee that this external page will be online forever, and we can't guarantee that someone reading this article will be online to check it either. Ziggurat 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. When the Digital DawgPound, Stankdawg and Strom Carlson get their own articles, why can't we have our own? Sure there was tons of unverifiable information, but most of it has been weeded out. --Murd0c516 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the "some cruft exists, therefore no cruft may be deleted" argument, and is not persuasive. If you think they are less notable than this group, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 09:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. And there's no need for snarkiness. --Myles Long 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I missing the point? I thought I had grasped it rather well: the existence of other similar articles does not mean anything other than that they, too, may be candidates for removal or merging - depending of course on whether the judgment of theiur relative worth is objective. And I was being entirely serious: if you think they are less notable than this, please do go ahead an nominate them. Alternatively, if this group are notable, feel free to include citations to back it up.  Right now the article describes them as a small phreaking group, and makes it clear that they were never widely known.  Some of the hard data is uncertain (e.g. founding date), calling into question the verifiability of other parts, and much of the article is given to spamming the e-zine.  In fact, pretty much the whole article is actually about an e-zine of which few people have heard.  Seriously.  If the subjects want it kept, fixing the article would be a much better way than recruiting meatpuppets (and I'm not saying you are, only that they are clearly in evidence here).  Perhaps they could start by removing 95% of the links.  Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 21:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are missing the point. Also, I didn't say that they are more or less notable than the other articles mentioned.  Those articles are actually irrelevant to this discussion, as I'm sure you know.  My point is that this article clearly needs work, but the PLA are sufficiently notable to not delete the article altogether.  Of course, that's just my opinion.  I agree that removing the majority of the links would be a good place to start in improving the article.  However, your statement that "pretty much the whole article is actually about an e-zine of which few people have heard" is subjective.  How do you know how many people have heard of it?  I have no interest in debating this further.  But what's wrong with the Meat Puppets?  I wish I was one of them.  (Btw, I appreciate you not saying/insinuating that I am a sockpuppet). --Myles Long 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Just because you don't know of them, doesn't mean many people don't.Countykid465


 * Strong Keep. As part of the PLA I know that the Phonelosers are part of technolgies history, they should be kept listed here on wikipedia!JuanGarcia


 * Strong Keep. Why should we delete this? If Evan Doorbell gets one, than PLA should too.
 * Wikipedia isn't a junkyard or free web space. Ardenn 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, per Ziggurat. This information belongs on the group's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle 23:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, PLA is a very strong page on the internet designed for humor mush like Ebulms and else. I suggest this be keep as it is follows all rules. And for those of you crying Wikipedia is not a web host, they have their own page they don't need wikipedia.


 * Strong Keep, I would say that if an informal survay of phone phreaks, that are under the age of 25 and have been active for at least 5 years, were taken, 90% of them would say that the PLA was the things that got them into phreaking in the first place. For an ezine/group/whatever to stick around for 10 years with no sign of stopping is unprecedented. For this reason alone it should have a wikipedia article.Adam Yauch 23:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't deserve a WP article Ruby 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep eminently notable pranksters.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 05:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Non-notable? Perhaps to people with no interest whatsoever in hacking or phreaking.  The PLA are a mainstay in phreaking/hacking culture and have been for years.


 * Keep If you delete PLA, you might as well delete everything else about hackers and hacking.


 * Strong Keep They are definitely notable in their specific field. Elements of the article seem inappropriate to me, but that's not grounds for deletion, as anyone rationally would realise that the PLA still warrant an article about their exploits, irrespective of the content. Deleting a page just because you object to elements of it's content is an unnecessarily simplistic manner of dealing with the perceived problems. Hauser 10:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if they are a phreaking group that has been around for 16 years and received televised press coverage then that is sufficient notability I suppose. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please these hackers are notable Yuckfoo 19:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, no opinion, but article should be mercilessly edited. List of zines is fairly pointless in the context of the article.--Isotope23 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. PLA is notable. Article does need to be cleaned up. &mdash;A 19:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Acoording to the logic of Stifle, that anything on WP with a related website should be removed! So if we used Stifles method WP would be left with 12 articles.JuanGarcia—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.254.11 (talk • contribs).
 * formatted above meatpuppet unsigned so it is readable. Double vote that should be ignored.--Isotope23 20:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

PLA is a significant site for phreak culture. This significance only increases over time as phreaks and phreaking fade from the popular memory, and are gradually replaced by other [more current] cultures. As an encyclopedic instrument, WP owes it's readership the preservation of this significant subcultural history.
 * Strong Keep please keep 141.154.185.32 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to be Alexa.com's #1 site in prank calls. Kappa 01:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * and #2 in pranks in general with a Traffic Rank of 87,868   ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep PLA is noteable.  Please keep! Jake 21:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has Zerg rushes. Wikipedia has lengthy articles of Starcraft strategy and the origins of every computer game known to man that DOESN'T MEAN A DAMNED THING. PLA doesn't meet the exacting standards of a website that half-believes Star Trek is real? Having a small article about PLA is somehow worse than devoting pages to gaming strategy and science fiction? Enjoy your world humans, I am off to see Hubbard.
 * User's first edit - suspected sock??Blnguyen 07:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense.Blnguyen 07:24, 17 February 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.