- Context hacking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant copy-violation of this page. The page was tagged by a bot, but the creator simply removed the tag. Furthermore, this is a neologism not in wide use, which is probably why there is one source whose words are quoted verbatim with no context. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with the above. Googling the term pulls up no usage besides a few random websites. Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above, have tagged and blanked as a copyvio. Acather96 (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the guy whose concept of "context hacking" is being presented in this article. And this is a short message to the guys who created it. Do some nice context hacks instead of creating a wikipedia entry about it. Kill that bastard page... NOW! Speedy deletion! Grenz (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The monochrom blog post states that it "is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License," so using it here with attribution would not be a copyright violation. I take no position on if the page should otherwise be deleted or not. — mlc talk 18:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Merge to Johannes Grenzfurthner. I think the TEDx source is good enough for a paragraph and a couple citations. --Pnm (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I've gone ahead and completed the listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, (next time finish the job, Acather96.) However, given the notice on the blog itself I suspect that the COPYVIO claim will be shortly overturned. -- RoninBK T C 19:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)