Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of computer security hacker history

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. Wizardman 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of computer security hacker history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is almost entirely unreferenced, and seems to be primarily summaries of hacking-related events that are unreferenced, unsubstantiated and in many cases too non-specific to even research. Much of this article has been removed at different times, and what remains is still mostly unusable. If anyone has ideas about how to make this more encyclopedic, I'm open to them and would be happy to see it done, but at this point it appears unlikely that "Timeline of computer security hacker history" is an appropriate framework for the information it contains.

(Applicable policies WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:BLP). Avruch ^T 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I just looked at the first couple decades, but the information presented appears accurate, signifigant, and sourceable. Many of these points can be found collected in actual books/papers documenting the history of computer security/cracking, thus avoiding WP:SYNTH. That said, the organization is akward, and I would rather see this information in a prose article than a timeline (and I suspect it already does) Providing some sort of inclusion criteria, as per WP:SAL and then enforcing it would go a decent ways towards repairing the article. -Verdatum (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overly broad topic, delete as per nom. Looks like an indiscriminate collection of hacker related events. RayAYang (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough subject, and it's a step in the right direction, with sourcing given for the events. To overcome original synthesis objections, I recommend that the author find and cite some sources that have "timelines". You don't have to (and shouldn't) copy a text from a book, magazine, or newspaper, but capsule histories usually accompany articles in USA Today, Time, Newsweek, and probably one of the books mentioned. Mandsford (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is useful to have an "index" like this, as long as the entries are good, have references, and good wikilinks.
• Keep. Useful, well-referenced and encyclopedic. Axl (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a handy overview of the major hacking evens during the last few decades. Lack of referencing is countered by linking to Wikipedia articles that are properly referenced.Riemerb (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except, in many of the cases that I noticed, the wilinked articles were just as poorly referenced as this one. Note that I've removed a bunch of stuff from the article since I came across it the other day, so its in better shape than it was. Maybe "History of computer hacking events" would make more sense? I'm guessing there is already a history of hacking page, haven't looked yet though. Avruch ^T 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it's a useful looking collection of information. MediaMob (talk) 21:43, 19 August 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.