Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackproof

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hackproof

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

This article is in violation of reason #6 in the Wikipedia deletion policy because the title of the article, "Hackproof," is a neologism, and the article is primarily a description of the original research of Joseph Mitola, as evidenced by the fact that he has made the only substantive contributions to the article, the lack of citations ("refs forthcoming" in the References section), and the article's explicit admission that, e.g., "The proof of this fact is a little cumbersome. It is implied in technical papers cited below explained below,[3] has been proven, and is in the process of being published." The colloquial term "hack-proof" is in common use, but may be more appropriate for Wictionary than Wikipedia, and the article discusses the term as used specifically by Joseph Mitola in his research rather than its common usage. Bthompso8784 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having read the article over a few times, I'm not completely sure what it's talking about. What I am sure about, however, is that there isn't any coverage of this word, even though it's been used in a few news articles. Overall, seems to fail GNG. Delete per NEO. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:jmitola) See https://hackproof.com/ for an example of "hackproof" that is not hackproof. Software radio was a neologism before it became mainstream. Hackproof is on the same trajectory. If wonks and Wikipedia want to drop a cutting edge article then fine. I will stop contributing to the cause. There is no quid pro quo here, but I'm not going to keep sending my annual checks if the editors are being capricious and arbitrary. Do your research and you will find a critical need for this article. And the format of the discussion group is a little off the wall as well. Jmitola (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous claims are unsourced; refs forthcoming is not an acceptable hack for this and is why we've the Drafts namespace. Software-defined radio is actually a Thing™ though. "same trajectory" mayhaps, but is still CRYSTALBALL-ish; we prefer blunt edges already worn-down and processed by third-parties.
Please starve The Beast; Foundation are blowing the monies on "consulting"-fees anyway... (Might consider supporting Internet Archive; arguably more noble cause to donate toward)
"...format of the discussion group is a little off the wall as well." — How so? -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I feel like any of the subjects discussed in this article could fit better in some system/computer security article (and maybe they already are), and the specific title is more of a wiktionary thing. As an addendum to that: Hey article creator (whoever you may be), chill out, don't take this kind of thing personally. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay masquerading behind a neologism. What they [experts] do not explain very well is... is a gigantic red flag for WP:OR; there is no definition for the assertion that a computer is hackable in uncountable ways (separately, the words have meaning, but together they do not). (Just to pick a few, but I actually read the whole lot)

Even if "hackproof" was a term in use, I support the deletion of that article and the recreation of another one, since exactly zero bytes of content can be salvaged. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. ubiquity (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2016 (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.