Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackforums

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. There is clear consensus in favor of deletion. When the subject is tested against WP:WEB and WP:N, which require demonstration of significant reliable source coverage or some official award/honor, it fails. Many site hits, but no substantial recognition by reliable outside media, does not equate our critical definition of notability. JamieS93❤ 13:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hackforums

Hackforums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The speedy was declined. Despite attempts by two editors to make the article pass WP:WEB, they failed and I can't find significant coverage myself. Joe Chill (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am collaborating with the owner of the website at the moment, as well as the other editior. More information will be provided. The article was just formed today there is now way it can be very detailed in such a short amount of time. It will pass WP:WEB just let me get the required info. Lunagron (Talk)  23:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything reliable either: this is not a notable site, and this Wikipedia article is merely advertising. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creator seems to think that Twitter feeds and contests are notable events, and that this pie chart is a reliable source. They reinstated that chit-chat again, and keeping that unverified and trivial stuff in the article will only convince more editors of the site's non-notability. Best go off and find some reliable sources that discuss your topic--good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is in no way advertising. Drmies seems to enjoy delting content without first explaing why on the talk page. We could always work together to create a more suitable article. Lunagron (Talk)  02:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page is also under construction and should be given the chance to be completed within the guidelines of Wikipedia. --Lunagron (Talk)  02:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, don't get personal: you have no idea what I enjoy, and if you did, you wouldn't be talking like this. Also, please acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines, one of which is WP:AGF. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh. Can you please read WP:WEB? Honestly. Joe Chill (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and HackForums is very notable around the Web. As for the Wiki page only being for advertising, HackForums happens to be the largest site in its criteria on the Web. It is the 3rd largest MyBB Forum. Also read these: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Jul/164 As I have said, there is reason for HackForums to have a Wiki page, what are you reasons against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanofdark (talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter, Alexa, and forum posts do not show notability! Joe Chill (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visit this link http://www.thebiggestboards.com/mybb-forums.php and view #3 on that list. As I have said, largest in its criteria, and 3rd largest MyBB Forum.Titanofdark (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are you reading? Number 3 says that it has to be distributed through a notable medium. Joe Chill (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are incapable of finding it, I will post it all here;
  1. Site Members Posts

1 NCAAbbs 31,989 5,312,550 

 	Thousands of fans, hundreds of teams--all one plac...

2 Yugioh Card Maker Forum 539,961 4,055,538 

 	A forum complementing the popular Yugioh Card Make...

3 Hack Forums 188,424 3,825,339 

 	A large hacker community with all types of securit...

Look at #3Titanofdark (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem? Where the heck does it say that size and a forum post (unreliable source!) makes it notable in WP:WEB? Joe Chill (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, showing the size, it shows that many people have visited the site, and that it is no small forum run by some kid trying to have fun. Why would we need a Wiki page for advertising, it is merely to have a Wiki page, and to inform of the site, not to advertise. Give me a few GOOD reasons why it should not be made into a Wiki page.Titanofdark (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about the fact that every notability guideline goes against it. Joe Chill (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How so?Titanofdark (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god. Read WP:WEB and WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read both, now please get to the point.Titanofdark (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see: Twitter (not reliable), forum posts (not reliable), and Alexa (view counts do not show notability). Joe Chill (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see: I have used none of those sources. Please rephrase your fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanofdark (talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why the is http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/hackforums.net# listed in references? Why were forum posts used and then reverted? Why is hackforums used as a reference for itself? Why was Twitter added to the article and then reverted? Your fail. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the first link, it covers the pie chart, showing statistical data of which percentages of people from each respective country visit the site. HackForums is used as a reference because the header of the site is used in the article, and citing is important. Also, I did not write the article, I am merely writing why it should BE an article, there is much difference there. Now as I have said, please correct your fail.Titanofdark (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me why you think that site views and an active community show notability when WP:WEB doesn't say it. You're obviously ignoring it so I'm done discussing it with you because you're wasting my time. Joe Chill (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Titanofdark: Please read WP:V. Jarkeld (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, your time would be saved by letting us make the article. Secondly, it shows that it is the largest site in its criteria, meaning hat it must be noticed, thus notability. It is recognized by most all AV corporations, many of which hold accounts on the site. The owner has supplied to help MyBB keep its domain (MyBB.com) http://mybb.com/donation-drive The site has done many things, and holds the interests of individuals and corporations. I myself, running and operating a business use information obtained from HackForums. Other businesses use the site too.Titanofdark (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this page has just begun, and has has every Wiki page achieved an award? Notability is the basis of everything, and HackForums has achieved much in its life. Please tell me why we must have an official award when I am sure not every article here has an award. Also, the wiki page for HackForums wasn't finished yet, so you wouldn't know all of the information that would be posted, therefore not knowing every bit of information about the site, and not knowing any awards. Please continue with the HackForums article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanofdark (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that the site had to win an award. Joe Chill (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Can't find anything reliable either: this is not a notable site, and this Wikipedia article is merely advertising. Drmies" <--- This guy said it needed an award. The entire argument is about notability, hence it's about an award or something "notable". The site is extremely notable, it's a huge site, one of the biggest of its kind. It's not merely for advertising, I think many people should know about this site simply because it's a huge resource for ANY security professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterZuFu (talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC) — MasterZuFu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources found. No signs that it passes WP:WEB Jarkeld (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in Google News archives. A quick search found nothing elsewhere to meet our criteria, and its most vocal supporters here have found nothing that meets our notability criteria. Folks, you need to understand what we mean by notability and come up with something that meets our criteria, it's no good saying that it's notable for this or that reason, you need to show notability according to our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zarro things on Gnews. Andrewz111 (typo intended) (let me know) 15:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. All the claims of notability are sourced to itself. I don't want to promote other sites that abet copyright violations, but I've named one on the article's talk page, and (1) it has considerably higher Alexa ranking than this one, (2) it is mentioned in reliable sources unlike this one, (3) it has a very active forum,[original research?] and (4) it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Pcap ping 15:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: confuses "hack" with "crack". Oh, and of the four refs, two were for the site itself, another was Alexa, and the fourth one is - a cached copy of the site itself. Nothing reliable yet to establish notability. TFOWRpropaganda 15:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Reconsidering !vote after reminder from SqueakBox about doing one's research properly. Back soon... TFOWRpropaganda 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. There's no universally agreed meaning of "hack"— it has different meaning in various subcultures. Pcap ping 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The actual title should be "Hack Forums", not "Hackforums", but I will not change the title name because of this AFD. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also finished copyediting the article. I will not vote on this article, as I may have a biased opinion. I actually will vote as I find that improving this article is hopeless. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article gives no reliable independent sources, unless you count Alexa site information, which is not substantial coverage. The reasons given above for "keep" are: "I am collaborating with the owner of the website at the moment", "The article is still under construction. We are receiving info from the administrator", "If it doesn't need to win an award, then why is the page up for deletion?" and "I think many people should know about this site simply because it's a huge resource". None of these relates to Wikipedia's notability criteria. "Still under construction" has got a point to it, but if after a week no evidence of notability has been found then there probably isn't any. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple, hopefully notable, events that the website has been involved in. --Lunagron (Talk)  00:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. Still no indication of notability. Jarkeld (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would be considered a notable event; a member getting arrested?--Lunagron (Talk)  00:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. The problem lies more with your interpretation of notability:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Jarkeld (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No reliable third party sources exist that are talking about this subject. Torchiest talk/contribs 18:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources in the article or otherwise found in searches to support any legitimate claim to notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication in the article that it meets WP:WEB and a search does not provide significant coverage to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately it is unlikely that any amount of editing of the article - paid or otherwise - will change that.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fail WP:WEB, WP:GNG, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable forum (195,000 individual pages) on notable subject but badly written in the beginning. People claim they cannot find refs but it took me 5 mins to find 1 decent ref and I bet I can find more by the end of the day. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: that search returns all pages within hackforums.net. A better serach may be this one, which returns all references to hackforum.net excluding those within the hackforums.net domain (it returns "About 25,200 results", by the way, so SqueakBox's point still stands, IMHO). TFOWRpropaganda 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: most of those pages are download links on warez sites and other miscellaneous links that are not particularly useful to establish notability. Jarkeld (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of a large number still can leave the rest as a fair amount; our notability standards aren't that high on wikipedia and this article already establishes itself as far more notable than say SecurityFocus, another "victim" of the Antisec Movement. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SqueakBox says "notable forum", but does not give any justification for that claim, unless he/she thinks that getting a large number of Google hits is an indicator of satisfying the notability criteria, which it clearly isn't. TFOWR says "SqueakBox's point still stands", apparently on the grounds that a slightly more restricted Google search still gets a large number of hits. However, looking at the first couple of dozen hits of TFOWR's suggested search, I see mostly mostly Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, traffic listing site, forum posts, etc. Quite simply, a number of Google hits is not evidence of notability, no matter how large the number and what the exact search used was. A Google search can be a useful step in searching for evidence of notability, but when the search has been done it is not sufficient to simply quote the number of hits. It is necessary to look at the pages found in those hits, and see if any of them gives the sort of coverage required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In this case they don't. SqueakBox says "most of a large number still can leave the rest as a fair amount..." True, but it is necessary to show that among the remaining "fair amount" there are some useful sources: SqueakBox has not done so, and my checking of them has failed to do so too. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hackforums&oldid=1140405647"