Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hacker (folklore)

:{{la|Hacker (folklore)}} ([{{fullurl:Hacker (folklore)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hacker (folklore)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Folklore term with disputed factual accuracy. Noone can be bothered to get to a library and actually check the listed reference, so we remain in doubt. However, I question the article on grounds of notability: only one, relatively unimportant, book has been found that mentions the subject even though it is supposed to be a part of Swedish folklore. Clearly not of encyclopedic value, unless a few more sources can be dug up. (That there is no corresponding article on the Swedish wikipedia is a hint of it's non-notability too.) Plrk (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It's probably of limited notability. I'm only familiar with one source and the writer was a radio journalist writing on local folklore. I'll nominate it for undeletion when and if I can find a better source on it.--Berig (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Per nominator. And somewhat surprising to see the editor who removes quality templates then vote for the stricter treatment of deletion. Tomas e (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:Our disagreement is unrelated to why I support its deletion. The topic is not of sufficient notability, I'm afraid, since I haven't found a professional folklorist writing on the issue (only a journalist specializing on folklore).--Berig (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as long as I can re-create it afterwards whenever I rewrite it with proper sources. Right now it spreads unsourced stuff around the globe ([http://books.google.com/books?id=kPbpyOuLziQC&pg=PA536&dq=%2Bhacker like here..]). –Holt (T•C) 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The standard way of !voting in deletion discussions is "keep your reason" and "Delete your reason". Ideally, the "reason" should be based on WP guidelines and policies for article inclusion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the relevant guideline for inclusion (WP:GNG), in addition to verifiability problems. decltype (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense article, there are no such hackers in Swedish folklore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2009 (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.