English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Hacker Key
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
- 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. The single 'keep' !vote does not provide enough evidence to counter the delete !votes, so the consensus is to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hacker Key
- Hacker Key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, unverifiable, seems to be a case of WP:NFT. The Hacker Key website apparently no longer exists. Why did you do it (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable trivia. The article doesn't really even explain what this actually is, but it looks like something from a (possibly no-longer-existant) web forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It does explain what it is, namely an extension of the Geek code. The Interwebs allows you to find more information there. I'd keep this article; it might be useful for somebody in the future. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Can you point to any reliable sources? Why did you do it (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weak delete. There are a couple of references on it in Google Books, such as Encoding: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases by Inc Icon Group International or Traits: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases by the same Inc Icon Group International, but the mentions are short, an in general it seems pretty much outdated, almost unused (I've spotted quite a few specimens in the wild life, but it borders on nothing). I tend to think it was not ever somehow popular itself, behind being "yet another Geek code derivative". Honeyman (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - apparently non-notable concept, lacks coverage in reliable sources. Could potentially be merged into Geek code, but it's not directly relevant to that article. Robofish (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2010 (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.