Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Context hacking

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 delete. Courcelles 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context hacking

(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. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete per above, have tagged and blanked as a copyvio. Acather96 (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Copyright violation or not, I still believe this article lacks any notability for several reasons: the A subpoint is the lack of substance in which to fill the content of the article which demonstrates little research out there. The B subpoint is that there are no credible sources or outlets which have used this phrase. And lastly, the C subpoint is that this new word is used by bascially no sources; and the sources which use it are unverifiable blogs. With respect, Lord Roem (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I created this article. Talks on the subject were given at a prestigious international conference (Emerging_Technology_Conference), at universities (e.g. Vermont State College) and at a TEDx event in Vienna. Notable? I think so, but I also like pnm's idea to merge to Johannes Grenzfurthner. (Sorry for stabbing you in the back, Johannes ;-) ) Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as a non-notable neologism (similar to MADEUP in this context). Or we could have a trial by combat to see whether Nice Context Hacking or Evil Plagiarism would win. I understand the rationale of the current policy of deleting all information on copyvio suspects, but I note that it is at odds with the policy of not blanking pages up for AfD, and its rationale. Also noted is Grenz's link to a page criticizing WP, while making demands of WP. Anarchangel (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the WP:COPYVIO policy does trump the AfD policy, because it attempts to prevent the copyrighted material from spreading to Wikipedia's mirrors, furthering potential damage. The content can still be viewed in the article's History section. I would probably suspect that the AfD discussion may be relisted after the COPYVIO claim is resolved, so that we can have a proper amount of time to evaluate the other notability concerns. -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting exciting. User Anarchangel posted a YouTube comment to my TEDx talk, accusing me that I want the "context hacking" page removed from Wikipedia for copyright reasons. WTF? Jesus! The text on "context hacking" in question is Creative Commons Sharealike 3.0 and GNU Free Documentation License. It's totally fine to use it. Interstellarpoliceman (my regards, even though we haven't met yet) started the wikipedia page and whatever you guys decide (keep or delete or merge or transubstantiate) is fine with me. My 'speedy deletion' remark was mere irony... and I promise I won't discuss my philosophical issues with wikipedia (Wikipedia is an MMORPG) here. Happy new year! Grenz (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Irony... or perhaps you're just being subversive??? I'm on to you now! :) -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I liked your first post more. This one's way too serious. Happy new year to you too! --Pnm (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who knows? (please add diabolical laughter with Austrian accent, slowly fading into sound of bathing unicorns) Grenz (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2011 (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.