Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamer


 * 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  no consensus. If a transwiki to wiktionary is in the best interests of both sites then I highly encourage it. Wizardman 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lamer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we don't necessarily need an article about every word that exists. This is all unsourced original research, and from what I can tell lamer simply means "one who is not good", it's a vague disparaging slang term. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term is put in context by explaining the subcultures involved.  It provides references to support it; one is a dictionary, but the rest appear to explain the term in its subcultural context as well.  Fishal (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The references would need to be reliable sources. They are not.  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, dictdef, no reliable sources to write an article from, merely to make a word definition from.  Corvus cornix  talk  22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable part of internet culture that deserves an article that goes beyond a dictdef, e.g. etymology and use, and its cultural significance. User:Krator (t c) 23:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please point to some reliable sources.  Corvus cornix  talk  23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, "etymology and use" are also properly part of a dictionary, not of an encyclopedia. If there were something encyclopedic to say about lamers (and not about the word "lamer"), I'd say it could be kept, but this article is purely about the term, and says nothing encyclopedic about lamers (as opposed to merely the term "lamer"). Chuck (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, more than enough cultural aspects to the term for an encyclopedic article, but it needs much better sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 09:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After 4 1/2 years and 350+ edits, there still isn't one reliable source. Unless we plan to abandon all of our policies and just make things up ourselves, this can't stay. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that nobody's working on it is not a reason to delete:  WP:NOEFFORT.  Fishal (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, an an important part of historical internet culture. It needs to be better sourced.
 * Keep. Some Lamers apparently write books. There's even a song about the phenomenon, by Charles Trenet. Lame kidding aside: The term has been discussed in books about internet jargon and I feel it can easily be made into more than just a dictdef, accounting for the etymology and different meanings in various subcultures.,, User:Dorftroffel 19:51, February 22, 2008
 * All of those links were to dictionary definitions of the term, basically. Which helps to demonstrate that this is an actual word and should likely belong on Wiktionary.  You are arguing that we should use original research to write an article, using only dictionary definitions as our sources.  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, a section about the term as used in popular culture may be a good idea. Or maybe not. User:Dorftroffel 02:17, February 23, 2008
 * Could it be merged to luser or at least transwikied to wiktionary? It is only a dicdef now & some of the article is unverifiable.  But some info might be able to be put to use & it'd be nice to have it a redirect to either of those two places. --Karnesky (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a term that's too used (and misused) for us to not cover it.84.78.233.117 (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd vote to keep the article, even if it needs to be more thoroughly sourced. The main source is The Jargon File, which is a seasoned enough source to quell accusations of being (the article) original research. Maybe a merge with luser or a transwiki link would be useful too. Scarbrow (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. The sources cited are not reliable other than Merriam-Webster. The definition in Merriam-Webster source ("3 slang : not being in the know") doesn't support the bulk of the article.  PKT (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2008 (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.