Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hacker Purity Test


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[kapil patidar number of ]
When will this AfD end? Timothy Clemans 04:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A week. enochlau (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Put down for db-nonsense, but not so - moving to AfD. No vote. enochlau (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as non-notable, though probably as notable as this kind of "are you an X" test can get since it was written in 1989. Pretty outdated now; most of the OSes in the "have you used this OS" list are defunct (much more so now than in 1989).  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:39Z 
 * Merge into Hacker. This article isn't the test itself, just a brief description and a link... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that this should be merged with Hacker... this is far less notable than Hacker. As for it being a description of the test rather than the test itself: it should be that way, since this is an encyclopedia.  The source itself could possibly go to wikisource but I'm not sure that's necessary.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:03Z 
 * You don't think Hacker could use a single paragraph about The Hacker Test, along with a link? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't think even one paragraph should be merged. If I created a "George W. Bush test" would you put one paragraph into George W. Bush?  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 08:01Z 
 * Yeah Timothy Clemans 08:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You made the test therefore you are the 1st source. That's not allowed. This test has some history and terms that can be looked in the jargon file. Timothy Clemans 00:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Hacker -- Astrokey44 |talk 05:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The history of this test could be helpful. Maybe it is kinda important to introducting the hacker culture. It could be said, "This is what three people at this time in computing noting as being important in the classification of a person in regards to the term hacker. It could analysized, critiqiticed(sp). Timothy Clemans 07:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, gets 32,000 google hits. Don't merge since it's far less notable than hacker. Kappa 06:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it gets 32,000 googles, it gets 630... "hacker test" gets that many - which of course catches a lot of other things. WhiteNight T 06:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like 9 of the first 10 results are about this kind of hacker test. Kappa 17:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that too. There could be a number of explanations for that though - at any rate I'm not sure about this one, especially since it isn't in the jargon file. It may not be because it was a joke... I guess I'll need to do some more digging... WhiteNight T 20:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I put in "Herewith a compendium of fact and folklore about computer hackerdom" on Google. The first 8 pages 20 entries is all unique. 160 links. Timothy Clemans 01:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jargon file has no mention of it; that says something about its non-notability, for something about hacking culture that's been around since 1989. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 08:01Z 
 * Comment Jargon file wiki link --kingboyk 21:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Quarl. enochlau (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Although the merge arguments are a little persuasive. If there's a suitable place to merge, then merge. enochlau (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, just another e-mail timewaster, no encyclopedic content. Agree with RN and Quarl.  Barno 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * keep please jargon file is not all inclusive Yuckfoo 20:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Many sites use this summary of the test:
 * "A compendium of fact and folklore about computer hackerdom, cunningly disguised as a test. This is version 1.0 from 1989-06-16. It was conceived and written by Felix Lee, John Hayes and Angela Thomas at the end of the spring semester, 1989." Timothy Clemans
 * From looking at the test, I wouldn't call it a "compendium" for entries like "Can you use Berkeley Unix?" any more then I would call a "how Asian are you" test a compendium for having entries like "Do you drive a rice rocket?". &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 00:35Z 
 * "A compendium is a comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. A compendium usually contains principal heads, or general principles, of a larger work or system." There are a lot of terms all apart of programming, hardware and the hacker figure.
 * What's the criteria for deletion being debated here? Whether one likes the test, or finds it personally relevant? Its notability is established. It's at least encyclopedic enough to go into the primary Hacker article. Are there other criteria on the table that I missed? :)
 * Adrian Lamo · (talk)  · (mail) · 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to Purity test. Gazpacho 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; now that's an interesting idea. If people aren't willing to put a link to the test into Hacker then perhaps Purity test is a good home for the link.  Afterall, the Hacker Test did evolve from various versions of the Purity Test...  Segv11 (talk/contribs)
 * Strong keep: This test is eminently notable, as well as a relevant and ancient (by Internet standards) part of Hacker culture. It is worth mentioning in the Hacker article, and has sufficient potential for expansion to justify an article of its own. Deletion is not justified by any of the criteria above-stated.
 * Adrian Lamo · (talk)  · (mail) · 22:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is listed in Hacker under See also, related. 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (unsigned edit by Timothy Clemans )


 * First choice: Delete. Second choice: Weak merge into Hacker. Third choice: Very weak merge into Purity test. For purposes of AfD counting, consider this a delete. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: how come the article got renamed and scope of it suddenly became much more restricted? Kappa 22:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was renamed to reflect it being a purity test. Timothy Clemans
 * I was about to object but from Google there are indeed some people who call it that. I edited it to clarify it is called 'hacker purity test' or 'hacker test'. Quarl (talk)
 * Merge to Purity test sounds good to me. Merge to Hacker culture would be okay.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 00:43Z 
 * I support a merge, as users are more likely to be interested in reading about this in the context of a larger article. Hacker or Hacker Culture would be more appropriate than Purity Test. My vote remains keep for the moment, however.
 * Adrian Lamo · (talk)  · (mail) · 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Could it be left just, because some hackers wrote it and it is a good example of what the hacker stero-type is? Timothy Clemans 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- it's not that earthshaking in itself, but it's been circulating around Usenet for over 15 years, and given rise to numerous spin-offs and parodies... AnonMoos 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So should it belong in the computing culture tied to hacking? Timothy Clemans 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not try a Google groups search instead of a Google web search? P.S. please confine discussion of this topic to this page. AnonMoos 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Heard about this for years. -- JJay 03:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep - probably should find a suitable merge target instead though. novacatz 05:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, then redirect somewhere appropriate. There are in fact a number of hacker tests (kind of easy to write one, after all) but as Google indicates, this particular one is not in any way special. I get a number of different ones on the first page already, but can't find this. Vanity. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 03:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn crap Incognito 05:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Radiant! WhiteNight T 05:45, 17 January 2006 (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.