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.
Keep - Let me counter. It is in use, clearly, by many. A quick Google search reveals the hacker emblem to be in use and identified with. Some even, apparently, tattoo it on their bodies. Some examples of its use: http://www.google.ca/search?q=hacker+emblem&hl=en&rls=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch I am not suggesting that a Google search result is automatically proof of notability, but the hacker emblem is clearly in use by many. --Ds13 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
quick note -- two of the three pictures of tattoos are on Eric Raymond's page, ie the person who proposed it. There does appear to be one guy in Florida who has independently tattooed this on his arm. So perhaps I am hasty to say "not anybody" - but this is (possibly) one tattoo, so far...I'll do a count of stores later, though, and see if there's a way to identify who runs them. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something else to consider, as evidence of this emblem being recognized... If you visit cafepress.com or zazzle.com and search for "hacker emblem" and you will see products, by a variety of individuals, emblazoned with this hacker emblem. These may or may not be selling like hotcakes, but this is not a new trend and these products' existence suggests that this emblem communicates something known to a subculture. Since this is not the work of one individual, the claim that this article is vanity or self-publishing (by Eric S. Raymond, for example) isn't true. --Ds13 (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point, kind of. It had not occurred to me that cafepress was evidence of notability. What are the urls of all those images tho? A lot of the ones I just looked at, when you look a bit harder, say look, I found a hacker logo on wikipedia ;) It's kinda meta. Then there are the omnipresent Eric Raymond subpages...funny you should suggest vanity publishing, lol. I suppose as the nominator, I need to take on the responsibility of assessing how many actual independent references to this logo's existence there might be. I guess my question is, if in fact as I suspect people are adopting it as a hacker logo because wikipedia says that is what it is.... what's the notability threshold for deserving an article? Incidentally, I have no particular quarrel with the man, except that he's ancient history, for which he does deserve his due, but claims to speak for communities that have never heard of him. If this logo were in wide use by hackers it would show up at defcon or blackhat or on 2600 imho. So let's not close this discussion *too* quickly. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that's a good example of independent use. They're active and as a SuperHappyDevHouse spinoff, unaffiliated with Raymond. So now we have *two* independent uses. But that's still just a logo, which may well have been picked because Wikipededia said it was a hacker logo. The hackerspace, yes, seems notable based on participation, though it's a little new. Although -- I don't see an article for *hackerspace.sg* on Wikipedia. But its logo? There is no article about the SuperHappyDevHouse logo, for instance. Nor the logo of the older and more established Hacker Dojo, a group that overlaps the original superhappydevhouse. Go look at hackerspaces.org. There are hundreds of existing and proposed hackerspaces, whose existence is notable. Some of them are well-established and therefore notable. And some of *those* are notable for additional reasons. Noisebridge, to pick an example with which I am not affiliated, has founders who are notable in themselve -- Jacob Appelbaum and Mitch Altman. And I note that there is no article about the Noisebridge logo. Elinruby (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides all the cafepress.com and zazzle.com products using it, here are some additional sightings:
thank you for the help. I have been looking at shops off and on. I think that some of the ones I was looking at are a kind of commercial version of a screen-scraper, whose owners will be happy to sell you any merchandise you like with any logo you like that will not get them sued. I can't quite say that for a fact yet, however. Possibly we can go at this another way, and avoid a lot of tedious trawling for both of us. Search results are not proof of notability, I hear. You can google my user name and get thousands of results. At least on the first 4-5 pages, all the results except the stores are in fact me. If you take the real name, you get thousands more, most of which are also me. This does not make me notable, nor do I think it should. Your thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My position on this is fairly simple. The emblem in question is an easily verified creation of a very notable person. In the last 8 years or so, it has come into minor, but widespread and easily documented use. Commercial, artistic, amateur, etc. Some of the publicity you read about the emblem is controversy: it is not universally liked or accepted, even in concept. Nevertheless, even this talk directed at the emblem is verifiable. Additionally, the actual form of the emblem (the glider) is, itself, notable with its own article. Together, these properties are enough for me to hold a "keep" position in this discussion. --Ds13 (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the summary, which may keep me from having to examine a whole bunch of merchandising urls. I still think the article should be deleted, or, now that you mention it, possibly merged to become a section of the glider article.
The separate article for this logo deals with its proposal by one individual who is notable in part for notoriously inserting himself into discussions and wikipedia articles that only peripherally concern him. Wikipedia should not be used for self-aggrandizement. The name-dropping policy says that association with one individual is not enough to demonstrate notability, in any event.
It's a logo. Most logos do not have wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does not even seem to entertain the notion that a logo can be notable since it has no criteria for logo notability. It does seem to have been incorporated into the hackerspace.sg logo, but neither that group nor that logo has a separate page, nor do the logos of other arguably more notable groups such as Noisebridge.
This "hacker emblem" has not been shown to be in use by actual hackers, with the exception of one group in Singapore which itself does not have a wikipedia page, though possibly it should. I say the emblem is not in use, based on its absence from the RSA conference and DEFCON, even at the level of the t-shirts of participants. If anyone is buying the merchandise, they aren't attending two of the most important network security conferences. I can't speak for Black Hat, but its attendees overlap considerably with defcon's.
Hacktivists such as the Sunlight Foundation and Hack for America do not use it. Anonymous, which may feel it meets the hacker description, does not seem to use it.
The proof of notability offered here is a search result best summarized by saying that some people are willing to make money using the emblem. Some of the links provided here to this effect (zazzle, the trash can, and one of the tattoos) appear on the page of the emblem's proposer. He disclaims affiliation with them but adds that their receipts go to the EFF, a claim not made on the pages in question. If he is right about that how can he know without any affiliation with them?
That leaves one or two tattoos, a trashcan, and a hackerspace logo as proof of notability.
All of the secondary sources that concern the logo say that Raymond has proposed it. There is a complete absence of secondary sources that say it's been adopted.
Merge instead? There seems to be a consensus against my proposal. I am mostly an inclusionist myself, so I understand the impulse. I feel it's misapplied here, but... I will accept the consensus. I have never done this before so I am not certain how to proceed. Does the proposal stay open a certain length of time? If I want to suggest we merge instead, which I feel would suffice to address my concerns, does this require a separate proposal? Thank you for any answers. Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment It appears that late in this debate there was a possible emerging consensus for merging the article. Relisting to generate a clearer consensus on a possible merger. Alpha_Quadrant(talk)03:26, 13 November 2011 (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.