Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacker

The term "spacker" to refer to crackers working for spammers is not in active usage. It is not used in online forums which discuss spam. A look through Google and Google Groups hits suggests that it is not a common word at all (~1860 and ~2400 hits respectively for spacker -"spacker dave" -"spacker-dave" -- that being some guy's handle). Almost all of these uses are in the offensive-slang sense referring to a mentally retarded person, not to a cracker working for spammers.

As far as I can tell, the "cracker working for spammers" usage was invented by Wired columnist Brian McWilliams for the hook of an article [1], and the very few extant uses of the word in this sense are quotes and imitations of that article. I suggest, therefore, that this article be deleted. It is describing a made-up word that is at best a piece of idiolect. --FOo 03:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

• My suggestion (sorry this doesn't fit any of the normal vote patterns) is to delete spammer (as a speedy delete to allow a move, it is currently a redirect with no useful history), move this article there, and then merge and redirect this article to spamming. The redirect the move would create at spacker could then be listed for deletion as a neologism with no significant history, and the useful material and history would all be preserved. Andrewa 03:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete "spacker," just delete it, after rewriting and merging any relevant commentary into spamming. I'm getting very tired of people believing that they're making a useful contribution by adding alleged memes-on-the-rise into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Slashdot or Google News. We're not trying to scoop anyone or be the first to report anything. Contributors get no brownie points for being the first to create an article on some alleged new recent coinage. On items dealing specifically with current events there's some point in updating them as they unfold in order to keep close track, sources are fresh and easy to refer to, and POV issues benefit from continuing discussion. Everything else, no rush. If "spacker" is an accepted term six months from now, that will be plenty of time to put it in. Dpbsmith 15:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: While minimum waste of time is dear to my heart, I think your proposal violates our system for implementing the GFDL. We need to either use and attribute this content or delete it. Perhaps if we delete it we don't lose much on this occasion, but I think we do lose something that has been well thought out and expressed. Andrewa 17:18, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• I like the page but suggest it should be improved somewhat. Other than that, I vote to 'Keep it'. Rajesh918 16:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet. RickK 22:50, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
    • True, but to be fair, it's Mikula's sockpuppet, so this could count as his one allowed vote. He's casting it to try and be sly about his new puppets, so he probably didn't give it any thought. But lets let him participate when he's not being obnoxious. --Starx 04:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed w/ Dpbsmith on all points. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:09, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. - David Gerard 18:43, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Dpbsmith's sentiment. Andrewa's solution is probably best, but somebody would have to be willing to do the work. Delete whatever is at spacker when the time comes, be it this article or an Andrewa-suggested redirect for deletion. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:00, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not a lot of work IMO and I'm happy to do it. This article has significant history, and GFDL compliance is extremely important. I don't want to short-circuit the VfD process by moving the article now, which is the first step. But assuming the vote allows it, I will. Andrewa 20:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Beelzebubs 20:29, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Andrewa's suggestion, especially since he's volunteering to take care of it :-) Isomorphic 03:02, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• I cast my vote for Andrewa's idea. --Starx 04:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)