Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griefer


 * 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Griefer

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

It's just lots and lots of original research. --Lijnema 00:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Keep" Research paper of griefing Although the three criteria are not so clearly displayed, an astute reader can identify all requirements.  The paper does seem to suggest there are more but I believe that some are clearly condensed.  It needed a some better external sources referenced.  I've taken the liberty of supporting the information provided with the active policies of one of the top five biggest online gaming companies.
 * Weak Delete The article is original reseearch but the term is a commonly used term among gamers. I would support if the article were changed to a stub with references and focused on what different companies do to try and get rid of "griefers". One such example is here. --Banana04131 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Week Support References have been added and this article need trimming and cleanup.--Banana04131 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per Banana04131 -- Selmo  (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to List of online-gaming slang. No need to merge, it's already there.  It is a common term, but dictionary entries are covered by WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Seems to be a newer but notable slang term...but only in certain circles. I personally don't have a problem with it. The sources seem legit, and the term seems notable...but Wikipedia will survive without it.  Gan  fon  03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of online-gaming slang. JackSparrow Ninja 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep: I don't think the nomination for this deletion is completly fair. There are "see also" sections which has some type of reference to the term itself. --CyclePat 07:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep So what about orginal research, that shouldn't be the sole grounds for deletion. There's plenty of information out there that can be used as a refrence such as | this article on g4 | the one on Microsoft's website | this article on Escapist Magazine and | this article from geek.com. | Google yields many results for this you can find alot of information yourselves from this search. Surely, we can look beyond what we see as original research, and verify the information ourselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RiseRobotRise (talk • contribs).
 * Comment: Original research is absolutely a valid sole reason for deleting an article. But that's not the problem here.  The problem here is that this term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but rather a dictionary.  --Lee Vonce 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree, an article has to provide sources. Just look at the three "criteria", where did they come from? Google says that they're not to be found anywhere else. I really think the article needs to be deleted or completely brought down to a stub. I'm not contesting the existance of the term, it's all the original research I'm not liking, and original research is a reason to nominate an article for deletion as per the deletion policy. --Lijnema 10:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Starblind. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A distinction should be made between articles having original reaserch and being original reaserch. This article has a number of citations that source a number of its statements; and, as just shown by RiseRobotRise, the potential for more citations exists.  The article admittedly needs trimming to remove OR, but it needs fixing, not deletion. -Toptomcat 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Commnent: The referencing is far from being wiki featured article status. All there is, is "see also" section at the bottom. A quick glance at those "reference" appear to be extremely relevant and have most of the information from this article. The problem I believe that Lijnema brings, I believe is not that the Article should be delete because of Original Research because he hasn't take the time to verify the information. And who would... it's a mess non-properly referenced, as per WP:REF material. Hence I understand the nomination. I however, do not accept it, as I previously voted keep. That means I believe that with a little work, a party of interest to the article should add the references. I think AfD should have to categories of deletion. I don't think the article should be deleted but, if you follow WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:V all these rules are interlinked and hence if one is violated they may all be violated. I personnaly believe the problem is WP:CITE and not, as per the nomination, WP:OR. --CyclePat 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per the well thought out explanation of Toptomcat. JCO312 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Starblind. Not notable enough on its own, it fits in better as part of a list.--Scimitar 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, per Ganfon Raitchison 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a non-noteworthy neologism.  If it belongs anywere, it should be in some dictionary of computer slang terms.  Perhaps some brief mention of the term in a larger article about online gaming might be warranted but not as a stand-along article.  --Lee Vonce 16:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just needs to have references.  P.B. Pilhet  /  Talk   17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see several references kicking around in there that indicate this term has been out there, and it appears to be more than just a dicdef thanks to some of the historical bits. But, I'm torn as to whether it's really notable on its own. Weak delete and redirect is about the best I can come up with. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While it appears to fall under WP:NEO, its a word that has been covered by the public media: LA Times, Toronto Star, etc. See references section. It's also mentioned in Blizzard Entertainment's End User Agreement, the largest subscribed to MMORPG to-date. Mkdw talk 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep while it may be a neologism... its a neologism thats been used by numerous media sources. The potential for referencing exists. When there is a potential, reference it ... dont delete it!  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Too neologism-ish for me. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It may be neologism by hard and fast criteria, but the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia allows things to be documented more quickly than an encyclopedia. This means that neologism is likely to creep in. That said, 'griefer' and 'griefing' are important terms used in the context of virtual worlds, just as much as troll is used on the internet. Troll is as much of a neologism as Griefer. If we delete griefer, lets delete troll too. And while everyone is tagging everything for deletion, I wonder if we shouldn't have people wandering around tagging things to be kept. ;-)--TaranRampersad 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bananaman. - Ocatecir 03:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Please. The recent incident on Second Life involving Anshe Chung being attacked by griefers was reported on internationally. We need this article. dreddnott 08:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "'Keep'" it's is extremely useful. --Slagathor 21:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it may be a neologism, but it's a notable neologism with plenty of sources out there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a notable neoligism.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is notable and well-cited. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This artice is very useful to me and I'm linking to it from my website for all the players of my game server to know what's against the rules. If you are going to merge it in the page with the list of slang, make sure that there is griefing and not only griefer. I still suggest to keep this page since it describe even better the actions that are considered griefing, for example in my game server we have this list: Leeching, Kill Stealing, Teamkilling, Stealing dropped items, Spawncamping, Suiciding. In short terms saying that griefing is forbidden is easy to make sure that you cover any lame action that a player could do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.54.88.8 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2007 (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.