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 keep. Suggest moving to a less awkward title. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of computer security hacker history[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an indiscriminate list of hacks, with no set criteria for what belongs and what does not. It is a tribute page, made up of original research and synthesis, listing the various accomplishments of hackers and groups of hackers. It is a spot where any hacker who makes the news can boast of their accomplishments, despite not being worthy of a mention anywhere else in our fine encyclopedia. Prior to 2000 the list is somewhat interesting, but after that it turns to crap. It does not belong in Wikipedia. If these hacks are truly amazing and world-altering, they can have their own article.

Perhaps once upon a time this list was useful, but now it is just an indiscriminate list, with no criteria for inclusion, and no obvious way to establish such criteria.

Delete. Brad v 05:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. Apart from the sources in the article such as the Washington Post, there are plenty more out there such as Cybercrime and Digital Forensics: An Introduction. Andrew D. (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's notable enough, and while a Google Book search will prove anything is covered in detail, this is a topic worth saving on this occasion. It could be vastly improved, but it appears to be very far from an orphan which means that from an encyclopedic perspective, it's proved its value already. And with 200 to 500 page views per day, despite its woeful condition, it's certainly of use to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a great article for research and helps to educate the public as to vulnerability of anything stored on an internet-capable computer. Government agencies are already making copies of emails and text messages - kind of invisible hacking. Though not well structured - this is a thought provoking article. Wik will lose me as a donor if they delete it. We need to understand that for every visible hack there are likely thousands that do not get detected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.219.109 (talk) 17:06, January 8, 2017‎ (UTC) — 99.225.219.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete or at least move to a less nonsensical title The number of views does not show notability. Whether or not there is information in sources about this vague idea, it is not an encyclopedic topic; it is not a well-defined subject for an article. The point of Wikipedia is not to "educate the public as to vulnerability of anything stored on an internet-capable computer" or to be "thought-provoking", and the claims that this article does those imply that it isn't written neutrally. KSFT ^(t|c) 19:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete or move" are almost diametrically opposing perspectives, I suggest you think again about this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have two separate opinions: I think that the article should be deleted because of its topic, as I explained above, and I think that the current title doesn't make sense. It looks like it probably isn't going to be deleted, so I mentioned my concerns about the title in the hope that it would be moved even if it isn't deleted. I do think that I could have been clearer about that. KSFT ^(t|c) 21:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN, there is clearly some interest, and the older material is not contentious. Some work on newer "hacks" would be beneficial, though, as the assortment is close to random. Bill Martin (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mr Martin, although truly un-notable mentions that don't get onto news at all alone must be purged. 185.89.218.231 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC) — 185.89.218.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.