Talk:Razor 1911

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the speedy deletion criteria weren't met.

It was deleted because of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#A7 but "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Which it definitely did as members were raided as part of Operation Buccaneer. Citing Warez group: "The most notable group is the legendary Razor 1911."

The cached Google page is very short while the image of the cache is how I remember the page. Valid references and content were removed in an edit prior to deletion? --Ondertitel (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that AfD would have been a better route for this, but I can give a little more background at least. The only references in the article were links to warez sites, explicitly linking to downloadable "cracked" copies of copyrighted software as citation for that this group had indeed cracked those programs. I removed those references as violations of our copyright policies. The remainder of the text contained multiple BLP violations (asserting that x or y was a criminal, without sources). I removed those. What was left of the article got tagged for A7 and it went that way. The Wikipedia article on Warez group is not a reference, and the statement about notability in that article is not referenced. We, The Operation Buccaneer article, also does not provide any citation for this group. I note that it also has a large number of unsourced BLP claims. I hope that explains the deletion and why the google cache looks the way it does. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much valid content was removed. Looking at archive.org shows me that two "external links" were supporting a lot of the content and them alone would've prevented deletion. I think they were still there in one form or an other.

I'm pretty sure there were no links to warez sites either. I remove those if I see them. Nforce/Nfohump/Isonews/Vcdquality... aren't warez sites. They are news sites with information about releases and they offer no warez. Therefore no copyright policies were violated either. The page must be restored as even the shortened article did not fail WP:CSD#A7. --Ondertitel (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some quotes:

The most prestigious pirate groups - Razor 1911, DOD, Pirates With Attitude, the Inner Circle - are [...]
— McCandless, David (1997-04-05). "Warez Wars". Wired.

For example, USDoJ (2003a) reported that they had prosecuted members of Razor 1911, an old and popular cracking group.
— Goode, S. (2010). "Exploring the supply of pirate software for mobile devices: An analysis of software types and piracy groups". Information Management & Computer Security. 18 (4): 204. doi:10.1108/09685221011079171.

--Ondertitel (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not entirely agree (the cybercrime.gov document is WP:PRIMARY, the defacto document is doubtful as a WP:RS) with the above, it does seem that the A7 was an error on my part. I suggest you take the basic reasoning to WP:REFUND, I support the undeletion. Once undeleted, I will take to AfD where we can look more deeply without fear of losing the conversation entirely (this talk page is orphaned and should not be here). It will help to get other eyes on this as well. Some of the links in the old version of the article (including from nfohump) took me directly to a list of download links (torrents, FS, etc). I checked each before removal, which the (currently deleted) article history shows. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a pretty hard to find and old quote:

The Razor 1911 bulletin board system is probably responsible for about one-third of all piracy in the US.
— Mick Pearson, the officer who arrested Ministrel, Fawcett, Neil. "Software pirates get a bloody nose. (UK investigations into software piracy)." Computer Weekly (1994):12.

I just checked. There are no download links on Nfohump.--Ondertitel (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article per request. If you take this to AfD, I'd be grateful if you'd drop me a note on my talk page. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to know what lobby organisation Tgeairn works for. IFPI? RIAA? Seriously, what pirated material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.94.153 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one here has mentioned the word "pirated" until your comment. The material removed from the article included unsourced WP:BLP violations, and links to websites hosting files apparently in violation of copyright. User:Ondertitel asserted that the material is not in violation, and Wikipedia legal counsel agreed to look into it. See the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#nfohump.com regarding Contributory copyright infringement. As far as associating me with some organization, first - none, second - discuss content not contributors. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result since then has grown a lot: Linking Legal Considerations These were the discussions: [1] and [2] --Ondertitel (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

--Ondertitel (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]