Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCjacking

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 redirect to Live CD. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCjacking

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism which also fails WP:USEENGLISH as the article lacks sufficient English-language sources using the term. Cybercobra (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added two English-language sources to External links. Note, however, there being a lack of English-language sources presented in an article is not a reason for deletion in itself. I spend more time on French Wikipedia than on English Wikipedia, and it is not unusual to find in the former articles with more English sources than French, or exclusively English sources. But this is not usually complained about because non-French sources are still accepted as sources, provided they are good ones. I don't see why should be more punctillious about the language of sources here.

Also see my arguments below. RedRabbit (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree, but since the article is question concerns a word/term/neologism... --Cybercobra (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article concerns a neologism, but is mainly about a practice, not a word. RedRabbit (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO, WP:NOT#DICDEF. Take your pick. Not enough found to have an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Under WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:PROMOTION. It would meet WP:GNG as a hobby or popular activity if there were more people doing it, but the referenced coverage only talks about one guy (which probably means it's also WP:COI, as he probably created the article). -- BenTels (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check before alleging the article contravenes WP:COI. The creator of the article is a native English speaker, which that 'one guy' is not. And I doubt the author of the page works for Google, which that 'one guy' apparently does, according to his homepage. Your other arguments I address below. RedRabbit (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Yworo (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of entries listed on Google from a search on 'PCjacking', so there must be considerable interest in the subject. Being a based on a neologism in itself isn't a reason to delete an article; there are plenty of articles based on neologisms which advocates of this article's deletion would consent to keeping (see the article on 1337 for example). I think a search through magazines and blogs will reveal an adequate number of sources, should anyone have the time and patience. PC Jacking is not merely some hobby of marginal interest, for Linux users are very passionate about their operating system . 203.39.247.185 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done further research and found a number of articles in magazines treating the subject:

http://www.tecchannel.de/news/themen/linux/434876/pcjacking_um_linux_populaerer_zu_machen/ (German)

http://www.fn.hu/tech/20060301/kalozakcio_szabad_szoftverek/ (Hungarian)

http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/9340/pcjacking-zur-verbreitung-von-linux.html (German)

http://blogs.pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/tux-love/2006/07/pc_jacking_a_craze_is_born.html

http://techie-buzz.com/foss/crazy-linux-fans-messing-departmental-store-computers.html

And that is to say nothing about the considerable discussion in blogs and forums.

Now allow me to address the arguments propounded above by the adovactes of deletion. To begin with Neologism — a search on the web (which I took liberty of making) will reveal the world has significant currency among bloggers, magazine-writers and people posting on forums. Therefore it is not fair to say the article is created with the intent of promoting use of an unknown or little-known word. As for WP:NOT#DICDEF, this does not imply the article should not remain, only that it should be expanded beyond a definition.

And for those who complain that the article is being used for promotion, I have this advice: rewrite the article in a tone that agrees with Wikipedia's guidelines, if it does not already. As a matter of fact, the last link is for an article whose author deprecates the practice; indeed an article on the subject needn't necessarily promote the practice, a fact to which that article abundantly bears witness.

As for notability, even if you ignore the evidence on blogs and in the links above, you only need to give the matter a little thought to see why the subject might be significant. Linux users number in the millions, most of whom are passionate about their operating systems and frustrated with the monopoly of Windows. Though perhaps a majority might not approve of 'PCJacking', a large proportion would be interested in the phenomenon, and non-Linux users besides — I should expect this conclusion would easily be borne out with a poll of Linux users — if you find otherwise, I shall only be happy to recant. If we follow the logic above on notability, all articles on Linux software which only a minority of Linux users employ should be deleted as being 'not notable'.

This should be enough establish the article's notability. RedRabbit (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as for WP:USEENGLISH, a quick look at the link in question will reveal it says nothing about a lack of English-language sources being a reason for deletion, contrary to what is assumed above; that article is about naming conventions. RedRabbit (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was how do we title the article if there's no English term for it, considering that the article is itself about a term? Foreign neologisms strike me as a bridge too far. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the word was invented by a Frenchman, 'PCJacking' is a composite of two English words; therefore there is nothing 'foreign' about it. And the Frenchman in question generally writes in English (online, at any rate). In fact, 'PCJacking' is the English term, and there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate title for the article in keeping with WP:USEENGLISH. Note the English articles on the subject don't put 'PCJacking' in italics, as would be expected if the word were French — on the contrary, to a Frenchman the word would sound decidedly English. RedRabbit (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another 4 sources in English (yes, English) to the article. Altogether there are about 13 different articles about PCjacking linked to on the Wikipedia article, 6 in English, 7 not in English. And they don't all talk about Manu Cornet. Read them if you like. Even the Washington Post discusses PCJacking, but not under that name. Can we agree the subject is notable now? Or do you need another 10 sources? RedRabbit (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of new "references" do not use the term "PCjacking", they are about using Live CDs, which we already have an article on. Therefore they do not support keeping this article. Why should it not simply be merged as a short note into Live CD? Yworo (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. By the way, PCjacking rates a mention in a book. http://books.google.com/books?id=HhyXPPX0HSkC&pg=PA28&dq=%22PCjacking%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&hl=fr&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22PCjacking%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false I made a mistake with those references, but there are still a number of others, at least 9, supporting the article.(talk) 13:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed the dubious references. But I still think the nine articles already found on the subject (most of which have since benn removed) establish its notability. However, I am in favour of merging the article to LiveCd. RedRabbit (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, PCjacking has been referenced in three books. http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22PCjacking%22 RedRabbit (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the Books LLC book, they simply reprint collections of Wikipedia articles. Yworo (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also scratch the one published by General Books, it's a vanity press. Getting your book published by them costs $18,000 - $25,000. Now that's vanity! Yworo (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, that leaves one book. 00:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a quotation and translation from the book? Google isn't showing me contents for that book. If it's only mentioned in passing, then the notability is still in question. Yworo (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The extract in question is in German. I had to put it into Google translate to understand it; so any translation I give would be a best-guess approximation, not a reliable one. But I can write it out in German if you like. As for notability, there are about 10 online magazines that discuss 'PCjacking', and one book; and it has made it into many blogs and forums besides. I think its notability is established. RedRabbit (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "online magazines" are actually the blog sections of the same. I'm afraid you haven't convinced me of the notability. I wouldn't object to merging the content to Live CD and making this a redirect, though. Yworo (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.