Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hacker misinterpretation

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE Jinian 12:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hacker misinterpretation
Not only is this pure dicdef, it's wrong. The writer purports that "hacker" only means someone who is very interested in computing, and so it has been misinterpretted. Checking Wiktionary, though, one of the defs is "A cracker; one who breaks into computer systems with malicious or criminal intent." See the usage note to see where the writer gets this idea. This should be deleted and not sent to wiktionary.--Dmcdevit 17:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. The possible nuances of "hacker" are already discussed at great length in the hacker article. Gdr 18:17, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
 * Delete. This material should be at Hacker. However, Hacker already discusses this and this article adds nothing to what is already there, therefore should not be merged. This is not a useful "index entry" as anyone seeking this information is very likely to look under "hacker" and negligibly likely to look here. so this entry should not be kept as a redirect. Therefore, simply delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Duplicates already covered information. Chris 20:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. Inspite of the "Hacker" page discussing that the press has been misusing the word "hacker", it doesn't quote any examples. It doesn't help if the press continue to misuse the word unless we make them aware of this. By the way, we must not forget that hackers were the ones who gave us the Unix operating system in the early days of computer science. I suggest that the hacker misinterpretation page be merged with the hacker page.
 * Perhaps merge a specific example or clarification to Hacker, otherwise delete, do not transwiki. Nominator shouldn't argue from dicdefs, especially one from the same project we're editing.  The fact that one "incorrect" use has gotten frequently used, even by John Ashcroft while he was USA Attorney General, doesn't mean that WP should list it as a standard meaning without a note right there in that def, although it does mean we should acknowledge the corrupted version.  The Hacker#usage_note section serves more usefully than this article.  Barno 16:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are saying Wiktionary is wrong, change it by all means. I thought it was a reliable source for a definition, but I admit I don't know what the true defintion(s) are, so if Wiktionary is wrong, then my assessment of it's merge-worthiness is also.--Dmcdevit 22:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, dupecruft. ComCat 01:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.