Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard (warez) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   No consensus (default keep).  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Standard (warez)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is an instruction manual for pirating software and related 'standards.' The references are actually image files; screenshots from warez groups, but not good sources, IMHO. XF Law (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reasons cited in the first nomination still hold. This is not an instruction manual, but rather a detailed description of the standards employed in warez distribution. To be honest, I think there's a lot to be learned from the article. It doesn't even promote warez distribution, so much as explain something. The odd source format is explained in the original discussion. For obvious reasons, there aren't publicly accessible sources to link to-- these are an ingenious recourse. Avram (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Informal standards set by unnamed committees with dubious authority to do so. Essentially original research, no reliable third party sources, ie it fails WP:V and I can't see it improving seeing as the article is several years old already. Equendil Talk 10:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not an instruction manual, simply guidelines to how material is packaged in this community. It's a great resource to law enforcement, security individuals and outside analysts. The 'scene' as a whole is a large group of unnamed committees, but they all work together to make a cohesive standard which, IMO, lends to its sense of notability. Since much of the discussion of this particular topic is made on private sites, the only public facing information is that within NFO files that are used as a source here. The article is used as an appendix-style resource to a number of other notable articles here, to keep them free of cruft.  Rurik (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question This seems to be a fairly inclusive source of details for this article. Would this meet the requirements of citation? This is where most of the images came from: .  Be aware that this is not an easy decision. The rules are not set down and posted on a public forum.  They're debated back and forth in the text files that accompany warez releases. It's a very unique system. Rurik (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree, it's not an instruction manual, however, it is completely lacking in sources independant of the subject. The references in the article are to the standards themselves, I see no reliable sources that establish any of the points made in the article. I understand that the information in the article is essentially correct, but WP:OR often is - it still is improper for inclusion. Equendil has this right - it fails WP:V. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and comment - It occurs to me that if we allow an exception for RS at a certain threshold (which might be a Good Thing), sources could be provided. If sources do not exist, then delete; but I'm thinking this isn't really true. 99.149.172.83 (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2008 (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.