Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hipcrime

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 of the debate was keep. RasputinAXP c 20:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipcrime

This is a vanity page for someone who doesn't have a enough notoriety, also is an advertisement for Usenet flooding software. 167.88.201.100 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Dippy write vandalware but this is not reason to delete meaningful story 82.99.144.128 21:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Karel Skvorecky[reply]
Keep - an article worth read & WP admin staff should not jumping to conclusion for who is give comment 211.239.125.111 14:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Seocho Gu[reply]
Keep - this bot master really was a trend setting and we hate his wares 193.111.30.10 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Henryk Kosinski Sienkiewicz[reply]
Strong Keep - After reading usenet for more than a decade, I can attest to the fact that many people use the word "hipcrime" and support his/her/their activities. While at the same time, a concerted effort has been made to block people's access to the software in question and even attempt to blacken its reputation. A quick Google will verify these facts. Wikipedia should retain its WP:NPOV and keep this article intact. 59.92.46.28 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Etaoin Shrdlu[reply]
- We know it's you, Hipcrime. This attempt to stack the deck through open proxies (this one is in India) isn't speaking well of you. 70.237.90.95 21:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep - what are tildes? 203.115.82.4 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)tildelover[reply]
- Oh, pull your head in and stop writing lunatic conspiracy theorist nonsense. And sign your comments: use four tildes (a 1337 h4x0r like you surely knows what a tilde is, right?). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides the fact that HipCrime has become a household word around Usenet, it seems that Rory096 has been removing positive comments in this article and replacing them with negative ones (and even adverts for Supernews). This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.
- This comment is probably from Hipcrime. 70.237.90.95 21:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - why does Rory096 edit and remove positive comments while replacing them with negative ones? What happened to WP:NPOV? --HipCrime
Keep - Based on Google, this does seem to be one of the most notorious vandals of all time - and a precedent-setter, too, being the first to create a web-distributed spambot. --Hyperbole 05:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice towards recreation. I'm pretty sure this violates WP:AUTO (or maybe it's his followers, but this guy seems to be on a lot of IPs), WP:NPOV ("but is also considered a hero and urban legend on the many newsgroups which support his activities? Come on!), and WP:RS. --Rory096 05:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. PITA. -- GWO
Delete Per the article: "an anonymous Usenet vandal". Enough said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - arrival of Hipcrime on Usenet was a significant event. The guidelines being developed at WP:MEMES might be (fairly sensibly) used to assess notability of this and would suggest that it was/is notable by the criteria being developed there to document the history of the Internet. - Politepunk 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Medium Delete or merge. Perhaps it could be turned into an article on the software tools, leaving the self promotion for notoriety behind. I could be wrong though??--Nick Y. 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not just any anonymous vandal, one that caused Lots Of Ruckus Back In The Day. (The same way Wikipedia might have an article on that car guy and that capitalist fellow, if we haven't had any other more significant trolls by 2015, when proposition to create such article might have any weight. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, he caused a ruckus, but not to the point of being worthy of a wikipedia entry. Duskglow 02:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Unfortunately (grumble). Georgewilliamherbert 04:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Georgewilliamherbert. (Yes, exactly.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Hipcrime is quite notable — he's a significant member of the cavalcade of independant individuals who did their best over the 90s to make USENET utterly unusable for no good reason (along with various troll organisations, and AOL). His concerns about our anonymous nominator's excellent work in trying to keep the article somewhat NPOV are, however, groundless: an article that says "HipCrime is the bestest vandal evar!!!!!1111" is not NPOV, and complaining about people who try to tell you so will just get you laughed at. Like this: hahaha! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The kid's just trying to do to WP what he did to USENET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
Strong keep, unfortunately. DS 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but get rid of the images. Blargh. Alphax ^τεχ 13:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dewet|✉ 13:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I am concerned by the fact that someone has tried forging comments on this afd. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hipcrime was a major nuisance back then. Dr Zak 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep Article is interesting and notable IMO. Looks liek this guy's work was seen by alot of people.Patcat88 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unwarranted vanity article for some insignificant usenet vandal. Protect against recreation with extreme prejudice. KleenupKrew 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete Interesting, but I agree with KuK (above)- someone tried doing a Google search on him/her? EvocativeIntrigue 21:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have 17 years of Usenet experience, much of which has been spent intimately involved in newsgroup creation and management, and I can unfortunately attest that Hipcrime is notable from firsthand experience. Dippie is annoying, perhaps infuriating at times, but has been highly visible and active and is clearly notable. As much as it pains me to say so, because I wish he'd just dried up and gone away 10 years ago. But he's notable. Unfortunately. Georgewilliamherbert 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me. I'd clean up the article a bit though to make it less POV and find more references to make the article stick.--Adrift* 17:16, 15 May 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.