Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wetware hacker


 * 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wetware hacker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The biggest problem with this article is that it is a POV screed. It presents the topic as positive and does not reference the controversy surounding the term Hacker (computing). It ignores the Wkipedia articles for wetware and hacker, and thus puts its own original research spin on these topics. It contains no citations. This article could perhaps be cleaned up, but there is nothing useful in it to clean. I recommend deletion. Jarhed (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  01:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was a good article. I ran across the term & had no idea what it meant until I read it.  I don't think you should delete it at all.  You could edit it to make it less positive but I don't even see the need, seems neutral enough to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.184.13.163 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)  — 216.184.13.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete – I can't find any source that can assert this article's notability. It's probably completely original research and has no sources. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  01:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is unsourced and looks like a possible violation of WP:OR. No relevant results on Google Books/News/Scholar. Most unique Google Results for "Wetware hacker" seem to be Wikipedia clones or otherwise unreliable: . — Rankiri (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- with modifications, including re-naming. There are multi-sides to the article, but research along this line has continued from the 60s. Even at respectable institutions, such as Johns Hopkins. Knee-jerk reactions to the subject cause it to be pushed under the rug. The current generation (who seem to be increasingly running to the pusher) need to see the science, philosophy, economics, etc. It may be that the subject is subsumed elsewhere. Or, it needs to be re-titled and re-written. The subject? Very much apropos to the modern times and our future. How many of our youngsters have been mummified under mind-altering chemicals just to keep them quiet and in order? jmswtlk (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many sources to be found. For those wondering about the justification, just browse this book: 3-lb Universe We are definitely more wetware than hardware (meaning, any hard circuit analogy ought to be suspect from the getgo, and that opens up issues on many levels that have not yet been addressed adequately (of course, who said that these were easy?). Of course, NOR is always an issue with subjects like this. Potential sources for an adequate article are not in a sparse set. jmswtlk (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, this discussion is not about the term 'wetware hacker', it is about the actual WP article. I would be delighted for someone to clean it up so that it kinda halfway conformed to WP standards.  I have done that to other articles, and I can't find anything in this article that can be kept.Jarhed (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * According to Google Books, the above mentioned work contains no references to either "wetware" or "hacker": . — Rankiri (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neologism.  See Avoid_neologisms.  I think that such topics should first be accepted at Wiktionary.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:20, 29 January 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.