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. Further discussion on where the material should live can be discussed on talk pages, there is no consensus to delete this article StarM 15:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crack intro[edit]

Crack intro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability unestablished for far too long. last time I asked for it to be established the tag was removed with no changes to the article and the claim that "notability was assessed" with no evidence given. I'll direct !voters over to WP:NOTE. Basically you need articles from reliable sources about crack intros (I highly doubt any will be found which is why we're here). Also read WP:ILIKEIT, none of these arguments are remotely relevant to keeping the article. we're not a repository of all human knowledge nor the keepers of all the little cool things we remember from when we were kids, because frankly we weren't a significant portion of the population. Crossmr (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was heavily into the Amiga scene, and crack intros were a big deal. They were basically demos that fit into a small amount of disk space. Many crack intros were compiled onto disks independently of the cracked software. Crack intros were extensively documented in paper magazines and disczines of the time, as well as being their own documentation - they invariably featured scrolltexts that referenced the scene. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh-huh, and could you provide those references? This is why its on the chopping block. Unfortunately our personal memories don't meet WP:V. The possibility of sources existing somewhere doesn't satisfy the criteria here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuetral Crossmr has a point -- it needs references to satisfy WP:N. There's no reason it's an inherently bad topic, it just needs justification as such, which means meeting WP's standards of what that is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but would rather see Merge if there was an article that covered video game piracy. Copyright infringement of software doesn't quite cover this area for video games, but I think there's a way that such an article can be created from various issues (and stay neutral and all that for a touchy subject in terms of legalities). --MASEM 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is without any reliable sources we can't stay neutral or establish notability. Those are why its been nominated and no one here has addressed that.--Crossmr (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given the historic nature of this esoteric subject, references may be somewhat difficult to come by. But it's an encyclopedic subject addressing one aspect of computer gaming history and as such deserves a place in the encyclopedia. I could see a merge being possible, but I don't think deletion is warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The historic nature and whether or not its an encyclopedic subject can't be established without sources. Simply claiming it as such isn't one of the criterion in WP:NOTE. While you and I might remember them fondly, in 30 years what personal experience does the 15 year old reading it draw on? Or what about the 40 year old now who never pirated software in their youth? We have to treat all articles the same on wikipedia and giving them a pass on policy and guidelines because of nostalgia doesn't really service the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The cracktro is an important step in the evolution of demoscene and chiptune cultures. Searching for these terms in Google Books comes back with some relevance. I know that the April/May 2005 edition of Custom PC mentions cracktros in their demoscene feature. If you have to merge it with anything, I suggest demoscene. - hahnchen 21:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If its important then we can demonstrate that with sources. Until sources are provided there is no evidence that anyone else shares your feeling on how important and prominent it was. Mentioning crack intros is a far cry from significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've pointed out various places in which sources exist. I don't have the Custom PC article to hand, but it is just one example of a source which states the cracktro as progenitor to the demoscene, A Wired magazine article on demoscene mentions it too - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.07/democoders.html. Search Google books for "Digital Youth, Innovation, and the Unexpected", for a few pages on the cracking community. - hahnchen 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You only pointed out a single source a claim that it was in a magazine. This they first appeared in Northern Europe in the early '80s as add-on introductions is trivial coverage per WP:NOTE and does nothing to establish any notability. If this is the same caliber of mention that appears in the other magazine neither of these are remotely sufficient to establish any notability.[1] another single sentence drop in a much larger article. Again nothing remotely sufficient to demonstrate any kind of greater notability.--Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Those links are sufficient to establish that this was an important step for the direction of the demoscene. There's a few pages on the subject in the book mentioned above, and more in "Software Piracy Exposed".[2] - hahnchen 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • those 2 sentences aren't remotely sufficient to demonstrate "significant coverage by reliable third party sources". Significant coverage is usually taken to mean at least 1 full article devoted to or almost entirely to the subject in question. A single sentence is a far cry from that. As for whats in the book I can't comment on that because I don't have access to it, but given the nature of this subject I would expect that if this was truly a notable subject in its own right (and not just notable within the demoscene) there should be some reliable online sources that actually give it coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Are you purposely misunderstanding me? Did I at any point did I even begin to suggest that the Wired article was "significant coverage". No, I'm just pointing you to a source which states that the cracktro was progenitor to the demoscene. Similar to the sentiments below, I'd appreciate if you just let the arguments stand instead of coming up with, and attacking your own flawed sources. - hahnchen 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

          • I didn't provide any sources. I was simply commenting on the one you provided and the one someone else added to the article, both of which are trivial coverage. Them establishing it as an important progenitor is irrelevant because it doesn't establish that the topic is notable. It might establish that its worthy of being mentioned in the parent article but in no way is any kind of reason to give it its own article. Importance in a larger subject doesn't mean its notable in its own right.--Crossmr (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I fail to see why this has to stand separate from software cracking, which could do with some content which wasn't mind-numbingly trivial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As a chiptune artist, I know of the notability of crack intros. Like Hahnchen said, this is an important step in the chiptune and demoscene cultures. — neuro^(talk) 06:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Then please provide the sources to back that up. We do not and cannot take editors personal testimonials on the reliability of content and the notability of subjects. This is why I recommended WP:ILIKEIT as further reading before commenting in this AfD. Notability in a scene doesn't mean notability to the greater public which is the purpose of WP:NOTE. The best we've gotten to this point is a trivial sentence in a magazine. If this is kept it'll be immediately stubbed to what is verifiable and notable..which is nothing except for whats contained in that sentence.--Crossmr (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not patronize me, I know of WP:ILIKEIT, and it has nothing to do with what I just said. As for your comment that "we [wikipedia] do not and cannot take editors personal testimonials on the reliability of content and the notability of subjects", please do not attempt to alienate editors by insinuating that they are not a part of Wikipedia, and that you somehow are. I did not say 'I like it', and nor did I say anything to that effect. I merely said that because of my situation, I know of the importance of cracktros. Jesus. — neuro^(talk) 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  He has a point though -- we don't have any proof that your word is worth more than anyone else's about this subject. Sure, you may know this, but it's not, in and of itself, a reason to keep the page. Show WHY this is true -- find some mention in a couple of reliable sources, of which your testimony is not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  An AfD is a discussion, and whether I have sources or not, I am perfectly entitled to contribute. As it happens, I do not have sources, but I am indeed looking. Most of my objection to Crossmr's comment was about his condescending tone, anyway. I am still looking for sources, and will get back if I find some. — neuro^(talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't being condescending, but repeating the same argument without any evidence is going to get me to repeat my argument since this is a debate and not a vote. AfD is a debate, but policy is clear that any editor who wants to add or keep content on wikipedia is required to show sources if its challenged. Well its being challenged right now. I wasn't insinuating that you weren't part of wikipedia, I was saying that simply claiming "notablity" without a single source isn't good enough during an AfD debate, which is exactly what WP:ILIKEIT says. Even if 20 people show up and all state that we should keep the article, if no sources are found the closing admin is still free to delete the article. Because WP:CONSENSUS clearly states that a local consensus on an article, afd debate, etc can't override the larger assumed consensus on a policy. As Chris Cunningham said this may be better as a section in software cracking, if all that can be found are a couple of trivial sentences referencing crack intros.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem here is that the notability of this topic is pretty blatant, at least to myself, but I am getting seriously annoyed at myself not being able to find any sources. This is more because I am a Gnome and tend not to add anything more than blatantly obvious sources, not simply that there are none to be found. As for your claim that you weren't insinuating that I wasn't part of Wikipedia, look at your application of 'we'. — neuro^(talk) 09:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately its not blatant to the general editing public that is why we're here. That is why policies like WP:V exist because what you hold to be true may not be held to be true to another editor. Their PoV is different. If you can't actually find sources you may wish instead to examine where your point of view is coming from and instead try to look at the subject objectively. If you, someone interested in the subject, can't find sources to establish the notability of this subject, what chance does Joe Editor have to do it? Crack intros might have been a big thing in the demoscene, but the demoscene itself wasn't a major life event for the greater population itself. Notability isn't inherited from the demoscene to its various aspects. Even if the article was kept it would have to be stubbed to the couple of sentences we can source, and at this point its unlikely anyone is going to do anymore big coverage on old parts of the demoscene unless some journalist gets nostalgic, so it would end up being merged with demoscene anyway in short order.--Crossmr (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I will stop commenting here to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. Regards, — neuro^(talk) 13:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plainly notable, Crossmr please don't hassle me in an attempt to get me change my vote, I don't "watch" these. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not hassling anyone. Afd is a debate not a vote. If you're claiming notability, please demonstrate it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Demoscene. It seems rather apparent that the only reason why the topic is notable is due to being a step in the development of the demoscene. Crack intros are already mentioned in the demoscene article, so it shouldn't be hard to take the little sourced information that there is in crack intro and move it into the demoscene. I'd consider changing my opinion if more sources were available. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Demoscene, or Software cracking, or wherever the interested editors decide is the best target. There's a lot of arm waving about notability, but if we can't find secondary sources, we simply don't have the information needed to construct a suitable article. If the sources are found later, the article can easily be split off and recreated. Pagrashtak 15:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to be a large amount of WP:Original research. The little information that is verified can be summarized in Software cracking and/or Demoscene - in only one or two sentences it seems. Redirect if "crack intro" is a likely search term. Marasmusine (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect into software cracking. Definitely a notable concept, but not much can be written that isn't WP:OR. This article is largely WP:OR, so it should be merged. Randomran (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2008 (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.