Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biohacking


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Biohacking

 * — (View AfD)

Deleted by me on prod last year, undeleted per talk page request, prod rationale was "neologism and original research". Procedural, abstain. - crz crztalk 09:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as before. yandman  13:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The rationale behind deleting it is not justified. In my opinion, 'neologism' is not at all bad if general consensus agrees upon the term and is ready to accept it. And moreover, it is not at all personal research. Just take a look at the number of distinct hits google gives for the term 'Biohacking' . - Paras Chopra
 * Please read WP:NEO and WP:NOR - crz crztalk 13:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll abstain for now, but as a professional working in the field of molecular biology, I want to state here that "biohacking" is certainly NOT a term used in the scientific community. The closest correct term would probably be genetic engineering. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect - to genetic engineering which seems to be the correct term for it. Jayden54 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to delete when redirecting. But an alternative target would be Biopunk, although I am still figuring out what the value of that article is. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge? and redirect to genetic engineering. Yuser31415 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I object a merge with genetic engineering. That article is about the scientific concept and this word is unused in the scientific community. A redirect to Biopunk would be better in my opinion. If not, a redirect (but without inclusion of this term in the target article) to genetic engineering. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a used term in the scientific world, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 14:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not just about scientific community. It should not be a matter if scientists agree on a term or not. It should be a matter if general public agrees on the term on not. -Paras Chopra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.9.39 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 January 2007
 * Delete, science fiction-inspired term used by pseudo-scientists. --ChrisWakefield 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now since you brought up the topic, discussions can go smoother if you define scientists and pseudo-scientists. -Paras Chopra
 * It is a term that enthusiastic students and other types of promoters (its a great title for a popular book that describes the real science) like to use to sex up an existing scientific field. It makes it sound cool since it uses the word "hacker" but there is not journal of "Biohacking", there are journals about "Computational biology", "Systems biology", "Molecular engineering" and what not.  Just as there are no "hacker" job titles outside of a few fringe shops, there are "Software engineers", "Software developers", "Senior software analysis", etc.  This is a slang term, which enthusiastic students such as yourself are attracted to since it is how you like to view yourself.   --ChrisWakefield 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, judging scientific fields from the journal names is not a very bright idea. Even if we use that to judge, If I start a journal named "Biohacking", would that make this term more acceptable to you than what it is right now? Also remember that terms such as "Software Engineers", etc. did not exist always, they were also coined some time in history and if Wikipedia were present at that time, Software Engineering would never have been allowed to be accepted as a scientific term. -Paras Chopra —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.180.123.247 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
 * deleteThere really does not seem to be any non-idiosyncratic use. Among the links in the article are links to the S-F, which does seem to be the inspiration, and the S-F article is enough.DGG 02:53, 9 January 2007 (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.