Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serial Box


 * 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. As one editor below puts it: "underground publications, by definition, do not have formal, static, verifiable sources", which also makes it clear why it can't have a formal, static, verifiable Wikipedia entry. ~ trialsanderrors 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Serial Box

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Non-Notable subject. ZERO Reliable source references that I can find. Appears to be SPAM for the product. BenBurch 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - I can find absolutely no press mentions, book mentions, or any Reliable Sources at all for this subject. Yes, it exists.  Yes, you can find ghits for it, but not one of those ghits is for a reliable source.  Worse, this article has become a low frequency edit war as the link to a Warez site that carrys this list of serial numbers for commercial software is added and removed.  --BenBurch 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOFTWARE, WP:N and so forth. Flakeloaf 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of notability and of reliable sources. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unreliable article due to lack of sources.--LethalAmbition 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - reluctantly . Despite the nomination, the subject is definitely notable - popular (63,000+ ghits) and controversial software mentioned many times on the web. However, I can find no references that satisfy WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. Ccscott 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the Wikipedia definition of notability and the common definition are not that same as I know you realize. Here it is a "term of art".  And honestly, I think that anybody who looks for this will find it on Google whether this article is here or not. --BenBurch 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with warez. Although convinced that this subject was notable (Google, large number of newsgroup/message board postings) my delete vote stemmed from concerns about this article not meeting WP:V and WP:RS. However, after considering Mark M's argument that http://www.serialz.to/ is itself a primary source I reread WP:RS and believe that in this case this publisher's website is sufficient. In particular WP:RS seems to qualify. Alternatively, I would also support a merge into warez as the present article has no mention of serial numbers lists like the subject of this article. Ccscott 15:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As above. 11:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC) preceeding unsigned comment by User:Ori_Redler
 * Delete Come on guys, you know you want to delete it, and the Surfer's Serials article while your at it. You cant have something as controversial as an informational article about a program! A program which can provide information that could enable a user to utilize copyrighted software by the use of a non purchased serial number now could you! Better remove it quick smart before someone like Steve Jobs reads this page and breaks out in a fit of laughter :D:P Wangchi 12:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please conform to WP:CIVIL in your comments. --BenBurch 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dont Delete Even though it doesn't have many sources this article provides useful information. Because it's about a grey-market product there's not much publicly available info about it to cite and Wikipedia is probably the #1 public source of info on it on the web. This is definitely not spam for the product as the product is free and contains no spyware etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.14.158.147 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Dont Delete It satisfies policy WP:V and guideline WP:RS because there is a primary source (The software is freely downloadable, from www.serialz.to). It may not satisfy guideline WP:N (I haven't actually checked each of the over 60,000 google results), but as the guideline "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense" I think the fact that there are so many mentions of it mean that it should be treated as notable. If it is not regarded as satisfying WP:N then it should be merged with the wikipedia warez page as per WP:SOFTWARE . It would make a useful addition as there is currently no mention of any serial based warez products. My comments apply equally to the Surfers Serials page which has also been nominated for deletion. Mark M. 22.1.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.208.172 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Please re-read WP:RS. An RS is more than just some website.  And it certainly does not meet WP:N unless you DO find several non-trivial articles in reliable sources.  Right now there are ZERO.  And sources are REQUIRED here. So, if you think it should stay, your job is to find them. BenBurch 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, the website provides a primary source "A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs" The primary source is the software itself. It provides evidence of it's own existence to anyone who wishes to download it. Mark M 22.1.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.208.172 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * No, all the website proves is that it exists. So does the tic-tac-toe program I wrote, but that doesn't make either one notable.  The reliable sources have to address the issue of notability.  Your job is to find those sources.  Otherwise, the article goes. --BenBurch 07:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I said. The article satisfies policy WP:V because there is a reliable source as specified in WP:RS.
 * Notability is a separate issue, and furthermore is a guideline not a policy, allowing for exceptions guided by common sense. Please refer to WP:N. Also, according to WP:SOFTWARE "Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users (beside the creator(s) and their friends) but do not meet the above criteria may be merged into the article describing their main functionality" . Hence my proposal to merge with the main wikipedia warez article if the serialbox article does not meet the notability guidelines. Mark M 22.01.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.208.172 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment It might be worth pointing out that the edit war might have avoided if the users who believed the link to serialz.to was not valid had discussed it on the serialbox talk page. MrDarcy above actually suppresed the discussion by advising Ori Redler to stop discussing the dispute. [Ori Redlers talk page:User talk:Ori Redler]. A side point anyway since I  believe that there are better ways to deal with an edit war than by deleting the article. Mark M 22.1.07
 * Ummm... Mr. Darcy is an administrator here... His actions are totally proper. BenBurch 13:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that MrDarcy has recently been promoted to an admin. It makes the apparent breach of guidelines all the more surprising. Please see WP:DR. "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page." Mr Darcy suppressed the discussion. That is also why I asked him to explain his actions, but he chose not to do that. In any case, this is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted, I mentioned it only as a comment since you referred to the edit war in your case for deletion. Mark M 22.01.07
 * The question of whether the link was allowed or not had been discussed and settled with a clear consensus earlier on the page. No established user has come along to disagree with the consensus to allow the images but not the link (which seems to violate one policy and at least one guideline, as well as posing DMCA problems). This anonymous user, however, refuses to accept the consensus, so he's making baseless claims against me instead. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there was a consensus. There seemed to be almost equal number of views to keep versus not to keep the link. I didn't refuse to accept the consensus even if there was one, I was merely discussing the merits of the case, not engaging in the edit war. And I have provided evidence that you suppressed the discussion, User talk:Ori Redler so my claim is not baseless at all. If you wish to discuss this further can we do so on the serialbox talk page rather than cluttering up this deletion discussion. Thanks, Mark M 22.01.07
 * There's nothing to discuss. Single-purpose accounts, like yourself and User:Wangchi, don't carry weight in determining consensus. Among established users, the consensus was clear: The link violates a Wikipedia policy, as well as some other guidelines. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to discuss the link here because the place for that discussion should have been on the article talk page. However, just for the record I have edited a few other unrelated pages so I should not be considered a singlepurpose account. Mark M 22.01.07
 * LMFAO because it is no matter that MrDarcy is/is not an Admin. The admins of course are users with more control here, but they are not automatically right or wrong on any issue. - Abscissa 12:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. This is a well-established piece of grey market software for Mac users, and it would make sense to cover it in an article on "warez". It's perhaps the most notable serial number-related program out there. However, I'm not so sure it needs its own article. 128.135.219.120 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above was left by me, sorry. Nightwatch／respond 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to Warez, this is a very popular application used by many Mac users, and deserves a mention, if not in it's own article, at least in another. Sfacets 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It might in fact be popular, but where is the RS that proves that? FIND that RS. I tried and cannot. --BenBurch 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Warez. With so many unique Google hits (including an About.com mention ), it's a notable enough part of the warez "scene" to deserve mention in that article. It probably doesn't deserve its own, though. --S0uj1r0 06:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP - the nominator does not cite any precedent and is completely wrong. There is an agenda out to delete this article. - Abscissa 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Satisfies WP:V and WP:RS, and this article is probably the best source of information on this program since it is, as said "grey." This is an indispensable tool in the Mac software pirates' toolboxes, with Little Snitch, and Azureus, and is very widely used. X [' Mac Davis '] ( How's my driving? ) 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep! There's a sort of willful absurdity to the argument that Serial Box is not significant because it lacks a formal, well-publicized source/distributer.   IT IS AN UNDERGROUND PRODUCT.  It's authors/originators deliberately stay hidden, with the file in question being distributed through non-traditional channels.   In spite of this, it has seen wider distribution and is much better known among the Mac using community than many 'real' commercial software products.   Those calling for the deletion of this entry have profoundly misunderstood the nature of the subject at hand; underground publications, by definition, do not have formal, static, verifiable sources...but there is absolutely no doubt that the product is real and significant.  --DeeMT  25 January 2007


 * Keep I think this is a useful source of information about it. It is worth having some objective information about the program, and perhaps something about its effects on the software industry, legal issues, etc. YahoKa 05:53, 27 January 2007 (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.