- 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. Mailer Diablo 15:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, erm. Unencyclopaedic, unverified, unverifiable, vanity (given name of author, User:XxxWickedxxx), author's only contribution other than adding a link to it from the dab page, enough..? Telsa (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 08:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely unverified and unsourced. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 08:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, vanity. --Merovingian {T C @} 09:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:VAIN, WP:BIO, and WP:V. Vanity isn't a speedy criterion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but move to somewhere ... just not sure where. It's actually not against WP policy to write an article on yourself, it's just not recommended. Here's what I found on 'Wicked' doing about ten minutes of Google searching:
- A hacker calling himself 'Wicked' successfully hacked www.grc.com (Gibson Research Corp.) on 4 May, 2001 and launched a series of six DoS. The website was down for 17 hours, and Gibson, a security expert (ironic?) reports that the attack reveals an enormous bug in Windows software, reporting this and various analyses to the FBI. The hacker was caught, but because he was only 13, his name was withheld and he was not subject to prosecution.
- This is a notable event, I think. Take a look at Gibson's report. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did google before listing this, and I did find this page. I don't see any evidence that the hacker/cracker/whatever in that story has any connection to the subject of the article. "wicked" is like "anarchy" and "countzero" and (these days) "neo": all very common names online. I can't tell you how many I have met over the years. I don't think a story about a 13-year-old with a DDoS tool five years ago qualifies as a source for an article about an "infamous" "old school" hacker who is known for "compromising disreputable companies". Telsa (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence that this was the same guy, and the article would be entirely unverifiable anyway. Zetawoof(ζ) 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lots of hackers, and 99% of the information about them is unverifiable. Zetawoof's point is well taken. No way to know how many "wicked"s there are. Fan-1967 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and unsourced vanity. It's also possible that the one in the article just happens to share the same handle as the GRC one. Kimchi.sg 16:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Rob 01:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.