- 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 no consensus. While keep has a clear majority of !votes after two relists, all but one of the editors arguing for keep provided reasoning largely unrelated to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Astalavista.box.sk
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Astalavista.box.sk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Aside from the three-paragraph coverage in Le Monde, linked in the article, my BEFORE is not seeing much, Google Books shows the site is mentioned here and there in lists (with short descriptions) of hacking sites, but I am not seeing anythign that meets WP:SIGCOV. Seems to fall short of WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Can anyone find sources to rescue it, or suggest a redirect (merge?) target if not? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Slovakia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think Security hacker might be a decent merge target, not perfect but it's probably the biggest overlapping topic area. Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if this meets GNG based on archived sources, but I'm still not great at finding archived web pages. — siro χ o 06:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Looking for sources and cleaning up the article. Personally, I think it would be unfortunate if it were deleted. After some digging, it does seem like it is an important part of internet history. The issue is that it is part of a culture that tries to cover its track and does not seek publicity. It has mentions in books about cyber security from the early 2000s; it is likely mentioned in more books that are not indexed online.
Ideasmete (
talk)
10:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Most of English books are indexed through Google Books, I think?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
12:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- They have indexed a lot of books, but definitely not most, according to Google themselves. Besides, it might be mentioned in periodicals that aren't indexed/archived, and very likely on web pages that have not been archived and therefore lost. The fact that it is frequently mentioned as a well-known website in the security community in the early 2000s, makes me believe there must be noteworthy mentions of it.
- I can understand if other people want to see astalavista.box.sk deleted, but in that case I think it would be most appropriate to relocate the content elsewhere, together with pages like SecurityFocus (one of the sites sometimes listed along astalavista). Ideasmete ( talk) 09:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Most of English books are indexed through Google Books, I think?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
12:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I think we can be pretty confident this meets
WP:GNG. Also taking into account Ideasmete's note about the importance. I'd consider GNG from this perspective of the table I've included below my comment. A solid platform of Le Monde to build on, and a lot of coverage across many other sources. There seem to be many more of these sources in non-English language as well, I've included one as an example. It seems reasonable, given the era, that we can expect other coverage like Le Monde to surface at some point in some language. If there is a really solid idea about how to include this coverage in a list or broader article I'm willing to entertain as well, but without a solid idea, keep seems like a good choice. —
siro
χ
o
06:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. In my opinion it makes more sense to improve articles where possible, instead of deleting them. In this case I think the article can definitely grow. Keep 31.55.146.75 ( talk) 15:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:siroxo
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [1] Lasar, Le Monde | 
|
|
400+ words
|
✔ Yes |
| Managing A Network Vulnerability Assessment |
|
|
~ Solid paragraph+ of coverage | ~ Partial |
| Hack Proofing Your Network |
|
|
~ Solid paragraph of coverage | ~ Partial |
| Steal This Computer Book 4.0 |
|
|
~ Solid paragraph of coverage | ~ Partial |
| Electronic Safety and Soundness: Securing Finance in a New Age (not yet in article) |
|
|
~ Nontrivial coverage in 3 spots, roughly equivalent to above books in depth | ~ Partial |
| Motori di ricerca: come cercare e farsi trovare sul web |
|
|
~ Some background and explanation | ~ Partial |
| Поиск в Интернете non-English source not yet in article (one example) |
|
? | ~ seems to be roughly comparable to above | ? Unknown |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. | ||||
- Keep from me. I remember using Astalavista.box.sk in the nineties, but I forgot what for (then I peeked in the article). I think this may be considered an important component of Internet lore. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 16:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, I see no support for Deletion aside from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- KEEP KEEP KEEP - I agree that this is an extremely important article as it relates to the history of the early consumer internet. While the purpose of Astalavista.box.sk may have been for less than moral purposes, e.g., there is no doubt that it was a cracked and exploited software site, in violation of a number of Copyright and other IP protections, it is still valid as many a "whitehat" made their name using the site. It is also a historical site, I would say to the level of /. in respect to the nature and community of the internet in the early 90s to early 2000s. It is important to remember the seemingly long-gone days of true geekdom, when surfing the internet was actually a term of endearment, and most people in the community understood that most things on the internet were not to be believed, a far cry for the global social anxiety that exists today because that one simple truism was lost when the internet connecting device form factor went from PC to mobile phone.The reason that I bring up this seemingly unrelated aspect of the internet community's history is because it does relate to astalavista.box.sk, in that the purpose of that site was "sticking it to "the Man"" and independent thinking that prevailed on the web until mass markets, mass media, and global billionaires took the core of the web, making it the commercial sewer that it was. Astalavista.box.sk was the Bonnie and Clyde, the Dillinger, the true Willie Sutton (of "I rob banks because that is where the money is" fame.) of the web, long before WWW2 and the commercialization of everything, and the bastardization of the web through mindless social media platforms.
Elgato99wiki (
talk)
23:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- What you really need to present is reliable sources that prove your point: without that, it's just "yeah it's important, let's keep it". Drmies ( talk) 23:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. While keep has a clear majority of !votes after two relists, all but one of the editors arguing for keep provided reasoning largely unrelated to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Astalavista.box.sk
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Astalavista.box.sk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Aside from the three-paragraph coverage in Le Monde, linked in the article, my BEFORE is not seeing much, Google Books shows the site is mentioned here and there in lists (with short descriptions) of hacking sites, but I am not seeing anythign that meets WP:SIGCOV. Seems to fall short of WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Can anyone find sources to rescue it, or suggest a redirect (merge?) target if not? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Slovakia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think Security hacker might be a decent merge target, not perfect but it's probably the biggest overlapping topic area. Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if this meets GNG based on archived sources, but I'm still not great at finding archived web pages. — siro χ o 06:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Looking for sources and cleaning up the article. Personally, I think it would be unfortunate if it were deleted. After some digging, it does seem like it is an important part of internet history. The issue is that it is part of a culture that tries to cover its track and does not seek publicity. It has mentions in books about cyber security from the early 2000s; it is likely mentioned in more books that are not indexed online.
Ideasmete (
talk)
10:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Most of English books are indexed through Google Books, I think?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
12:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- They have indexed a lot of books, but definitely not most, according to Google themselves. Besides, it might be mentioned in periodicals that aren't indexed/archived, and very likely on web pages that have not been archived and therefore lost. The fact that it is frequently mentioned as a well-known website in the security community in the early 2000s, makes me believe there must be noteworthy mentions of it.
- I can understand if other people want to see astalavista.box.sk deleted, but in that case I think it would be most appropriate to relocate the content elsewhere, together with pages like SecurityFocus (one of the sites sometimes listed along astalavista). Ideasmete ( talk) 09:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Most of English books are indexed through Google Books, I think?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
12:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I think we can be pretty confident this meets
WP:GNG. Also taking into account Ideasmete's note about the importance. I'd consider GNG from this perspective of the table I've included below my comment. A solid platform of Le Monde to build on, and a lot of coverage across many other sources. There seem to be many more of these sources in non-English language as well, I've included one as an example. It seems reasonable, given the era, that we can expect other coverage like Le Monde to surface at some point in some language. If there is a really solid idea about how to include this coverage in a list or broader article I'm willing to entertain as well, but without a solid idea, keep seems like a good choice. —
siro
χ
o
06:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. In my opinion it makes more sense to improve articles where possible, instead of deleting them. In this case I think the article can definitely grow. Keep 31.55.146.75 ( talk) 15:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:siroxo
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [1] Lasar, Le Monde |
|
|
400+ words
|
✔ Yes |
| Managing A Network Vulnerability Assessment |
|
|
~ Solid paragraph+ of coverage | ~ Partial |
| Hack Proofing Your Network |
|
|
~ Solid paragraph of coverage | ~ Partial |
| Steal This Computer Book 4.0 |
|
|
~ Solid paragraph of coverage | ~ Partial |
| Electronic Safety and Soundness: Securing Finance in a New Age (not yet in article) |
|
|
~ Nontrivial coverage in 3 spots, roughly equivalent to above books in depth | ~ Partial |
| Motori di ricerca: come cercare e farsi trovare sul web |
|
|
~ Some background and explanation | ~ Partial |
| Поиск в Интернете non-English source not yet in article (one example) |
|
? | ~ seems to be roughly comparable to above | ? Unknown |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. | ||||
- Keep from me. I remember using Astalavista.box.sk in the nineties, but I forgot what for (then I peeked in the article). I think this may be considered an important component of Internet lore. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 16:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, I see no support for Deletion aside from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- KEEP KEEP KEEP - I agree that this is an extremely important article as it relates to the history of the early consumer internet. While the purpose of Astalavista.box.sk may have been for less than moral purposes, e.g., there is no doubt that it was a cracked and exploited software site, in violation of a number of Copyright and other IP protections, it is still valid as many a "whitehat" made their name using the site. It is also a historical site, I would say to the level of /. in respect to the nature and community of the internet in the early 90s to early 2000s. It is important to remember the seemingly long-gone days of true geekdom, when surfing the internet was actually a term of endearment, and most people in the community understood that most things on the internet were not to be believed, a far cry for the global social anxiety that exists today because that one simple truism was lost when the internet connecting device form factor went from PC to mobile phone.The reason that I bring up this seemingly unrelated aspect of the internet community's history is because it does relate to astalavista.box.sk, in that the purpose of that site was "sticking it to "the Man"" and independent thinking that prevailed on the web until mass markets, mass media, and global billionaires took the core of the web, making it the commercial sewer that it was. Astalavista.box.sk was the Bonnie and Clyde, the Dillinger, the true Willie Sutton (of "I rob banks because that is where the money is" fame.) of the web, long before WWW2 and the commercialization of everything, and the bastardization of the web through mindless social media platforms.
Elgato99wiki (
talk)
23:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- What you really need to present is reliable sources that prove your point: without that, it's just "yeah it's important, let's keep it". Drmies ( talk) 23:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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.