Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:35, 16 July 2006

Bantown

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

An utterly non-notable group of nerds - sorry, hackers - whose article fails all criteria of WP:BIO, in particular no multiple independent reliable coverage (the sole source is Slashdot, which doesn't meet WP:RS). Damned if I know why, but I tried searching on Factiva, and came up with nothing. I'm sure they get a lot of Google hits, but who cares? Delete. Sam Blanning 01:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--Jusjih 01:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Bantown meet the two following criteria of WP:BIO:

1. Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
2. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)

I fail to see why Slashdot does not meet WP:RS. Please could you point out why Slashdot is not a reliable source. Keep Via strass 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Newsworthy? Then where are the news articles? Because I searched a database of hundreds of newspapers with tens of thousands of articles, and came up with zilch. As for slashdot, it does not have the fact-checking process required of a secondary source. I think Kotepho summarised it better than I could in the current WP:DRV debate about Eon8. --Sam Blanning 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sam, if I may call you that. Please note if I have added a reference to this article. It's from the online edition of an American newspaper called the Washington Post. Perhaps you could let me know if this would be considered reliable. I didn't add it before because as far as I am concerned Slashdot is a more important news source than what is presumably a local newspaper. HTH. Via strass 02:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability or non-notability aside (and I lean towards non-notable) of the subject, this article itself is a wreck. I vote delete until someone is willing to give this group more than just lip-service; perhaps then we can see whether they belong in the encyclopedia. --66.92.130.57 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• As a fan of Bantown for many years now, I think this article sucks and should be completely rewritten or not written at all. Strong Delete with extreme prejudice. --Weevlos 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination -- this nomination is appropriate because the group is non-notable and the article is horrendously written. ContivityGoddess 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This fails on so many levels. --Bouquet 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Just because an article "sucks" doesn't mean it should be deleted. It's easy to slap a {{cleanup}} tag on it, hard to undelete. My Google search shows just shy of 30,000 hits. I'd like to see more effort to verify notability before deletion. Ifnord 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not notable enough yet for an encyclopedia. One successful attack on a blogging site isn't exactly making hacker history. When they graduate to hacking Pentagon computer systems, pull some amazing stunts revealing the truth about secret alien technologies at Area 51 that get headlines around the world, which eventually leads to all the bantown members receiving long prison sentences, then we can reconsider Bwithh 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• A firm Delete. We don't need to encourage these "skript kidiez" by giving them their own wikipedia article. Everyone knows they're just a lame rip-off of GnAA anyway that has its roots in Furcadia. Cheburashka 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The current entry appears more notable than a typical vanity page, but Bantown isn't all that noteworthy. Maybe clean up the content and add it to an entry on cracker groups or script kiddies.
• delete as they only do it for the lulz not the monies.
• Delete Bantown has done nothing noteworthy, really they should probably just be rounded up and put in concentration camps for eventual clensing. --Qurve 06:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I believe Qurve said it quite well. 71.112.141.236 06:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain/Comment If anyone wants to keep it, find a newspaper article about it. DyslexicEditor 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unfunny group that doesn't need more excuses/headlines/credibility to keep it going. Baseball,Baby! 08:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-0 hits on Google News. If we keep this article, then we might as well have articles on WP vandals as well. They all seem to be in the same category of humanity.--Wine Guy Talk 09:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article needs the wiki final solution. --joeyo 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 16:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Knowing that Bantown has had run-ins with WP folk in the past, keep due to their involvement in the major LiveJournal attack that caused the site to redo its entire structure. The group meets WP:BIO, contrary to the nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the Livejournal attack really so noteworthy. At best, a mention in the Livejournal article, but not a separate article for the supposed culpritsBwithh 11:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Out of interest, is it verified that they were actually responsible? So far I've only seen the article where they claim to be responsible. --Sam Blanning 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What form would this verification take? Via strass 23:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps evidence of police investigation based on formal complaint by Livejournal Bwithh 11:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't know if it is, but there's nothing stopping us from making sure the article reflects what can be verified about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article is notable, and quality of an article is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to improve or re-write. Tobyk777 23:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The facts remain
  • This article contains multiple references to news reporting of incidents involving Bantown
  • They are not all from one source
  • They do not all refer to a single incident
  • They include well-known and respected sources such as slashdot.org and the Washington Post

Consequently any nomination based on non-notability is abusive. The fact that this AfD nomination is being ballot-stuffed by IP-based users who have no other edits on record is further evidence of this abuse. Via strass 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • There are two reliable sources, and they both refer to a single incident - where Bantown claimed to have hacked LiveJournal. --Sam Blanning 13:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thousands of blogs were defaced and had their emails changed to bantown(wildcard) at mailinator or spam.la. There are still some of the defacements up as well as comment crapfloods from hacked accounts on the relevant news posts. The Slashdot story even has someone comment about how their journal was hijacked. Your argument reeks of logical fallacy and illogical denial of legitimate reporting. Nevertheless, I still think this article should be deleted. --Weevlos 13:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThis seems like a perfectly valid and well written article with clear references. Disagreeing with the aims of the hackers or their credibility is no reason to delete the entry, as the events described in the article seem prefectly noteworthy. Green penguin 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I maintain that being known for one hack attack on a blogging site is not that noteworthy. the other IRC freenode attack appears to be totally unconfirmed as to responsibility. Even so, the two attacks would not be particularly noteworthy Bwithh 11:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep There is some notability, and two decent sources for the livejournal thing. Sources aren't easy to come by, so it will probably be a permastub. Passes User:Radman1/CUNT in my mind. Kotepho 05:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no such a thing as a "permanent stub". The definition of a stub is that it is a basis for expansion. An article that can never be longer than a few paragraphs without breaking WP:V is just a stillbirth. --Sam Blanning 13:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment To be fair,just wanted to note that there seems to be some influx of pro-deletion new users (probably from a rival hacker group or something) which would account for some of the more extreme comments above. On the other hand, it could be cunning reverse psychology by bantown partisans *shrug* Bwithh 11:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom 67.191.90.151 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)