Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newbie


 * 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 for now, but it needs to be expanded beyond a dict-def to deal with issues brought up here. Chillum 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Newbie

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

Very widely used term, but it's still an undersourced dicdef with a trivia list. I can't see it expanding beyond a dicdef. Has also been tagged for cleanup for a year with no improvements. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 20:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep Sources are available that cover it, Evan Morris, "Computers in the '90s: Internet Lingo for a 'Newbie,'" Newsday (February 21, 1995), Chris Mann & Fiona Stewart, Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online, Learning the Lingo of the Electronic Age Magazine, Reid Goldsborough; Reading Today, Vol. 21, August-September 2003 etc etc etc - neon white talk 21:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete low quality definition plus trivia. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep I would think a term like this would have a lot of sources available about it. But if improvement doesn't happen quickly I'll change my vote. JuJube (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per first four words of nom.--Otterathome (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep it is a notable term but, the article still looks primarily like what The Hammer describes. A definite cleanup candidate and perhaps the entomology could be fleshed out. The uses in popular culture thing probably doesn't belong although a section on similar terms may be useful (sort of see also: Probie) for instance. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's so commonly used that for use to not have something on this word would indicate we should delete the page on Wikipedia itself next, obviously I'm not really suggesting that but instead showing the term newbie is more wel known then Wikipedia, thus should have it's own article. Series premiere (remake) (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Widely used in a number of contexts. DGG (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see anything useful here beyond a definition, etymology, and examples of usage, which is exactly what I would expect to see in Wiktionary. The useful, sourced content would be better transferred to the entry there.--Michig (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I see this all the time online, my friends even say "noob". I think you can look into the "Internet Slang Dictionary" and it would say something on it. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The article at present (at least the parts supported by references) is a dicdef. It could be expanded beyond that butthis article doesn't seem to be on that course.  The NUB bit is a non-sequiter.  It doesn't relate to newbie except that they may share some linguistic common roots (a claim neither asserted in the article nor supported by the sources).  The source cited is about some SPU getting his dolphins in 30 days.  Never in a million years would a COB be caught dead calling unqualified sailors nubs in print, so I'm not sure the source helps to verify the text too much.  Also, in a few years there will be some good research on the subject of "noobs" in online environments (from rhetoric and communications standpoints), but the research isn't published yet. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, dicdif. This belongs on Wiktionary, not here; simply providing a dictionary definition (whether for slang or otherwise) is not an encyclopedia's role.  I'll also note that most of the keep arguments come down to 'this is a real widely-used word', which (while true) isn't a meaningful argument to keep a dicdif.  Establish is a real word, too, but we have no article on it, because there is nothing encyclopedic to say about the term.  if this article is to be kept, it need to be (somehow) expanded beyond simply a definition of and source for the term, with sources. --Aquillion (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm off to stub the article, remove OR and SYN. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment in case it wasn't clear above, the policy I'm appealing to in support of deletion is WP:DICDEF. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to the Wiktionary page. I really don't see this going beyond a dicdef. "N00b" is already mentioned in Leet, and I can't think of any other encyclopedic relevance to the word. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are sources that cover the emergence and use of the term which would take it beyond a dict def. Though most link it to noob so a redirect would be appropriate. -- neon white talk 13:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Newbie is the original term so would suggest that instead of a redirect to noob it should be the other way around. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 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.