Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre channel


 * 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. Even taking into account the references found, there is a consensus that the article fails the RS rules and should be deleted.  MBisanz  talk 04:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre channel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced article on a particular type of warez trading IRC channel. Due to the nature of the material, it's unlikely that any reliable sources exist, especially for the details. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Preliminarily withdrawn, given the cleanup and sourcing that Tothwolf's done. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - There's no way I can see it passing WP:V, let alone WP:WEB.  --Dynaflow   babble  23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part were you referring to for WP:WEB? Was it the section I pulled for failing WP:EL? Tothwolf (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Cannot find any reliable sources as per nom its unlikely that reliable sources do exist. Frozenevolution (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've put about 5 hours into tracking down references so far and found a number that seem to back up the majority of the article. I've gone ahead and removed two section from the article that could not be referenced that also clearly failed WP:NOT and WP:EL (which were ironically the two sections that seem to be attracting the most vandalism). One easy to find reference is the book "Software Piracy Exposed", isbn 1932266984, which is also cited in a number of other Warez articles. Earlier revisions of this article actually seem to be more encyclopedic and seem to fit in better with the rest of the Warez category and articles so it might be better to rewrite the article rather than delete it outright. It may also be a worth considering merging this article and a number of other stub articles in the Warez category with the Warez article and provide categorized redirects for them. I think Pre channel could easily fit into a subsection under the Distribution of warez section in Warez. I'd be happy to work on this but I don't I see a reason to put much into Pre channel until after the AfD issue has been decided. If this wasn't currently an AfD and the issue had been raised on the talk page instead I'd probably have already merged and redirected this article. Tothwolf (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is there anything more detailed than the indirect reference on page 121? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See Chapter 7; 'The Distribution Chain', Google books seems to strip most of that chapter out of the preview unfortunately. I'll format and copy the other references I found so far over to the article's talk page for now too. Tothwolf (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or possible Merge/Redirect I've removed two sections of this article that failed WP:NOT, one of which also failed WP:EL. Those certainly didn't qualify the entire article for AfD though. I've linked to a number of sources on the article's talk page that cover the rest of the article but I see no reason to work on rewriting/merging the article until after this AfD is closed. The general concept of a "pre channel" is well known and much of what is left in the article wasn't that difficult to validate. Finding sources to validate the list of commands (if they are even kept when this is revised) was much more difficult but the links on the talk page cover those too. If the nominator wanted to improve the article, he should have made a post on the article's talk page so someone could work on it vs tossing it up on AfD. With comments like "... it's unlikely that any reliable sources exist ...", "There's no way I can see it passing ...", and "... its unlikely that reliable sources do exist ...", it's pretty clear no one even bothered to try to source the material before nominating and "voting". I also feel I should point out this article has been constantly vandalized by people connected to the Warez scene who have been trying (unsuccessfully) to censor it for quite some time (see edit history). Tothwolf (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I made a stab at searching up references online before nominating, but wasn't able to find anything that looked like a WP:RS. As it stands, I'm still dubious about the FileShareFreak citations, but there does appear to be enough to go on now. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure we'd need the FileShareFreak.com links since most stuff seems to be sourceable from the other links, but at least they are from a Warez-related news site. There was a ton of info on sites that I didn't include links to because they didn't look like they'd qualify under WP:RS. After the AfD is closed we need to figure out what and where to merge and also see if any of the other smallish articles that are directly related (such as Nuke (warez), Zero day information, Topsite (warez), etc) also need to be merged/redirected. Maybe much of this should go into a Warez (distribution) article? Tothwolf (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Uhm, why is this being relisted again? We've decided to work on it after the AfD is closed. I've removed the material that shouldn't have been in this article to begin with and we've located sources for what's left. Tothwolf (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As I understand it, an AfD can't be withdrawn once somebody says it should be deleted. At that point the discussion should run its course. --Ged UK (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make much sense. This should have been closed as no consensus. I'm getting tempted to close it myself at this point as this is getting absurd. Tothwolf (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks notable enough and has potential Lets  drink Tea 01:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless references from reliable sources are added. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As no references.--Sloane (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WTF -- Do people not bother to read? References are on the article's talk page. This should have never been relisted TWICE now. If this gets deleted this will absolutely show a lack of WP:UCS. Tothwolf (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The references should be in the article not on the talk page so that the reader can judge their quality (or lack thereof). Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They were located after the nominator started the AfD. Feel free to place them in &lt;ref&gt; and cite web. I'm not going to do so until after this AfD is closed. Tothwolf (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * These are terrible references.--Sloane (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you at least try to be specific? This seems to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. Two sections in the article itself that I've since removed was what initiated this AfD anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow continued improvement of the article since there is an active good faith effort to address the nom's concerns.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:23, 26 February 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.