Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Email hack

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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email hack

Of the dozens of definitions for "email hack" I could think of, this would be... well, it wouldn't even be on the list. Someone tagged this for speedy deletion, but I don't think that's appropriate. Nonetheless, it should still be deleted. I'm not sure what specific policy to cite; maybe WP:NOR, since this definition seems quite original to me. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 05:04:14Z

• Delete, that's certainly not what an "email hack" would be. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This is no more a hack than something written in Leet. Bergsten 10:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe I was a bit harsh, but email hack is not a good term for this. Bergsten 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although it more or less has some justification, as above this is very far from being the most common usage of the term, and the most common usage is so obvious that it would be deleted as a dicdef. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense page --Mecanismo 12:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. BTW the same user created Domain hack describing the same thing with web domains instead of email addresses. Firebug 18:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - However, domain hacks are somewhat growing in popularity and probably merit an article. I wasn't aware of that name for them (I've only seen del.icio.us and I was in fact wondering if that sort of technique had a name), but if del.icio.us is a domain hack then j@mes.com is certainly an "email hack". Unfortunately, I've never seen anybody use an "email hack" before, so I can't comment on whether it's a practice as widespread as domain hacks or whether it's non-notable and therefore worthy of deletion.
  • Comment - I have a hard time accepting either domain hack or email hack, English language hack maybe. If the terms are used, they both need disambiguation. domain hack could also mean DNS hack. I have never heard the term email hack, but I think it would imply doing something technically clever with an email (the message or the software handeling it, but not the address). If these things are to be regarded as hacks the terms domain name hack and email address hack would be more accurate. But the hack is not in the realization that a word can be divided into parts or that the character '@' looks a bit like an 'a', it's in the idea of choosing it as a name. Thus in my opinion the best name for both things would be name choice hack. Bergsten 22:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it is referenced, consistent with domain hack which is similarly referenced. Unless there's a particular reason why someone sees this as either untrue, not the standard definition of e-mail hack, or else not suitably notable, I see no reason to delete this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you re-read my nomination, you'll see that I do very much doubt that this is the standard definition. If there is any standard definition, it derives from "hacking email" (e.g. "An email hack has been going around the office, make sure your virus definitions are up to date!"), not from some cute typographical game. Should your vote be counted as a delete, then? —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 01:45:58Z

Well, this is the difference between "hack" and "hacking". A "hack" is just a way to change something - it doesn't imply any criminal behaviour. While "hacking" often does. "Email hack" therefore means as per this definition while "Hacking in to e-mail" is what you are suggesting. I cannot imagine anyone saying "Oh no, someone did an e-mail hack!". No, they would say "Someone hacked my e-mail" or "My e-mail has been hacked". Thus they have different meanings. Of course, this kind of thing is covered already in computer hacking where you can read up more about the difference between criminal hacking versus just changing something. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be covered by Wikipedia, but I don't think we need two separate articles on what is really just one topic. What concerns me is the names of the articles. As described above I think they are unclear and some what misleading. But the references for them are no good either, the only ones to mention the terms email hack and domain hack are the ones related to the site xona.com. The said site makes no claim (as far as I can see) that the terms are in wide use, they also use us as a reference for the term domain hack. This makes me think one of two things is true, either the term was coined here and they started using it, or more probable they coined it and use us to push their term through. Bergsten 01:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Um, what? Stifle 14:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, possibly a neologism. — 69.209.57.50 16:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Keep or rename (or merge), not delete. I created the name because there were no names for these type of emails. It was a take off of [domain hack], as it was so closely related. Not neologism. 137.186.22.163 04:21, 15 December 2005 (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.