Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Cracking Force/Release History/vote1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | United Cracking Force | Release History
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uncle G's major work 'bot (talk | contribs) at 17:19, 27 September 2005 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/United Cracking Force/Release History/vote1 moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Cracking Force/Release History/vote1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 06:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

United Cracking Force/Release History

This article is long list of software organized in a crude table that features ANSII graphics. Is this spam, vanity, or patent nonsense? Whatever it is, it does not belong on Wikipedia. I suggest that it be deleted. --NoPetrol 23:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

KEEP It is a reference for the United Cracking Force article that took me 7 hours to compile. Delete if you want, it will just go back into my user space (where it was originally).  ALKIVAR™ 00:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably transwiki to wikisource, or keep, not sure what gets done with stuff like this. --SPUI (talk) 00:05, 14 Mar 2005
  • Wikisource, would that be the place for it? - David Gerard 01:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont think its the right type of material for Wikisource which is why I had it here. But since the opinion so far is to put it on wikisource I have. I'm sure in 3-4 weeks i'll get a "this doesnt belong on wikisource move it to wikipedia" vfd over there.  ALKIVAR™ 03:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think it does belong on Wikipedia or Wikisource; I think it belongs on this company's website (and not your name space. That's not what its for). --NoPetrol 02:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The fact that you called United Cracking Force a company shows you have 0 understanding of this topic and should not be involved in its VfD.  ALKIVAR™ 03:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • The way I see it, the fact that I have 0 understanding of this topic after reading the article in question is exactly why I think the article should be deleted. Also, I understand that while United Cracking Force may not be "an association of persons for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise" ([1], definition 3 b), it is still a "a group of persons or things" (definition 2 a), so I wasn't totally off. --NoPetrol 21:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Statistical source data" and "Texts of historical documents" go into wikisource, so I say transwiki. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Votes after this point are redundant because the author has already moved the material to Wikisource.

  • Transwiki. Megan1967 04:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. I mean, come on, it's not like they created the things on the list, they have simply removed copy protection from them and spread them across the world. Yes, that does happen a lot, and individual cracker groups may be notable for a variety of reasons. But a list of 'look at all the things we did' is plain old vanity. Radiant! 09:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. Though I'm sure some might care about this information, I also have concerns regarding the legality of keeping it here. The last thing WP needs is the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA lawyers going after it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Extreme keep as encyclopedic. Exactly WHAT legal issues are there against referential facts and statistics? In the United States, where the Wikipedia servers reside, we have something called freedom of speech and this is clearly within the boundaries. —RaD Man (talk) 04:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) 19:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, and it was here in the United States, was it not, that 2600 magazine and a bunch of other websites were sued just for linking to DeCSS code? This is not a mere list of cracked programs, it also has the exact ZIP file name and such of the cracks themselves. The current legal climate is rabidly against this sort of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • There is a nominal difference between linking directly to a piece of software which circumvents copy protection (such as DeCSS) and a text-based list of file names. There has never been a law against listing names of ZIP files, don't be absurd. —RaD Man (talk) 01:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It seems to me that the DMCA could potentially be interpreted that way. I don't see a huge difference between "Click here to download the crack for WinPieStudio4.01" and "The name of the file you need to crack WinPieStudio4.01 is wps4crac.zip". Anyone smart enough to know what cracking a program is also knows how to use Google to find wps4crac.zip, so the fact that it isn't a clickable link is moot. At the very least, it's a legal grey area into which Wikipedia should not tread unless there's a clear consensus that we're to start disseminating warez cracking info (and I'd like to hear some copyright lawyers weigh in on the topic too). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - lists of warez cracks are not encyclopedia material. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the group itself barely cracks the notability bar. -Sean Curtin 02:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alkivar, I'm sorry it took you seven hours to create this, but you didn't even get the character set right. This is not encyclopedic content. If you improved it, it might have a place at Wikisource. NTK 03:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    1. you cant specify the correct font on wiki PERIOD.
    2. it is a REFERENCE for the article, it is not meant to be encyclopedic
    3. you randomly search the web to collect 10 years worth of warez release nfos in under 7 hours if you can.
    4. Dont be a dick  ALKIVAR™ 03:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to List of United Cracking Force releases. — Dan | Talk 04:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a necessary reference for the UCF article. Without it, some facts in the article have no source. I think Wikisource is an alternate place for this list, but I oppose its deletion here. Rhobite 05:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Starblind has a good point about the legal issue. This is borderline illegal, including in the USA, and WP should be very careful about that (we don't list BitTorrent files either). By the way, the author (Alkivar) has just stated that it is not meant to be encyclopedic. In other words, he's just admitted that it doesn't belong in WP. My earlier vote to delete stands. Radiant! 14:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not "borderline illegal". What law does this "borderline violate"? It's not illegal to make a list of robberies, or a list of money launderers, or anything else. This is no different. It's just information.. don't be afraid of information. Rhobite 02:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, it's easy to say that if you happen to live in a free country. But the possession of information can be very dangerous if you are unlucky enough to live in a dictatorship. GeorgeStepanek\talk 03:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Calling the U.S. a "dictatorship" is the height of silliness, especially when the topic at hand is free speech. I put it to you, which U.S. law does this list violate? Hint: "it just does" isn't a valid answer. Rhobite 04:07, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • Does no-one get my sense of humour? "Irony (adj): resembling an iron." It's just more encapsulated mollusc irritants in front of porcine quadrupeds. Oh, I'm wasted here. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I already said that, it could be interpreted as violating the DMCA. See my comments above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly vanity. The article doesn't establish how United Cracking Force is notable. There are millions of people involved in illegal activity out there, and not each of them deserves a Wikipedia entry. Martg76 17:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The point of this is not to make uCF notable, the uCF article itself does that. This is merely a reference for the article itself.  ALKIVAR™ 05:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, the uCF article definitely does not do that. Martg76 12:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your in the minority then, United Cracking Force passed VfD with only 3 delete votes to an overwhelming keep response.  ALKIVAR™ 07:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource. If it's already, there, delete it from here. This is currently at the top of Longpages. It's a reference (and one of dubious value at that), it's raw data, it belongs at Wikisource. grendel|khan 16:50, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth; appears to be a valid and encyclopedic reference. On Wikipedia, we have room for fictitious laws in the make believe Star Wars universe; fictitious gym trainers from the world of Pokémon; and Star Trek characters so utterly minor they only appear in a single episode. We certainly have room for this as well. --GRider\talk 18:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's rather fallacious - said law was deleted, and said gym trainer and minor character were both merged. Radiant_* 14:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hi Radiant! Said law is still open for discussion and has not been deleted. An unabridged response to your comment may be read at my talk page, but I must respectfully disagree with you; my argument is not fallacious nor was it meant to be. After all, we even have articles on the practice of Lighting farts. To each his own. --GRider\talk 17:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- this is just a list of files, and a poorly formatted one at that. What's next, List of software available on Joe Blogg's BBS 1984–1986? Psychonaut 10:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — neoEinstein 19:02, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a cut-and-paste text dump, not an encyclopedia article. It could go to wikisource if someone wants to move it, or an external link to wherever this stuff came from would probably be good enough. CDC (talk) 19:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks like a valid list to me. The format could certainly be improved (wikify, anyone?). The fact that someone seriously thought that this might be illegal just shows how poor the DMCA is, not that the material in question is anything approaching actionable.  The Steve  20:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

ALKIVAR, in case this gets deleted from here and Wikisource, you could go to http://www.thefreesite.com/Free_Web_Space/ to set up a free web page where you can put this. I guess I could put this list on my web page and link to it from the United Cracking Force article if you want. --NoPetrol 01:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh I have plenty of webspace to do this, however it would be considered "linkspamming" to link to my own personal page as a reference since then it would be "original research". Hence the whole POINT of it being on WP or WS instead.  ALKIVAR™ 02:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 21:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I guess it could be useful on Wikisource, so I wouldn't object if it was transwikied. Carbonite | Talk 21:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So is that a Delete or a Transwiki vote? I read that as emphasis on Transwiki, could you please clarify?  ALKIVAR™ 23:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_Cracking_Force/Release_History/vote1&oldid=24169227"