Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hack gap

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 merge to Political hack. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hack gap

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

Judging from the article, this seems to be a phrase used maybe twice, once each by two people. No evidence of notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too difficult for you to click on the links above and see for yourself what the usage of the phrase is? — goethean 21:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the article's sources. There is one article in which the phrase "hack deficit" (not "hack gap") appears, and another article that quotes the first article. That's it. No basis for a WP article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure as I'm not convinced enough to fully state and I found results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Political hack. The "Hack" in "Hack gap" looks to refer to "political hack". Whether there are 2 or 20 sources, as long as it's based on that other neologism, I think it makes the most sense to mention it there. Can always spin it off later if the article grows considerably, but I don't see that happening any time soon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Political hack. I agree with Rhododendrites. We don't need a separate article for every spin-off term based off of a neologism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all of the above; violates WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (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.