Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loser (person)

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 12:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loser (person)

Extended dicdef with added personal attacks. Delete CLW 12:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable concept in popular culture. Kappa 14:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep,, I agree w/ Kappa, this is a concept that's become important in terms of social status. It's often used and different than using the word "Dork" or "nerd" as a derogatory term, it has a deeper conotation.
• careful deleting the examples section Kappa, you might just get added to it. ;) Cleanup and keep as per Kappa CastAStone 14:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. Extended definition with a note that it's extensively used in pop culture is not encyclopedia-worthy content, even without list of examples. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as essentially unverifiable material that is either dead obvious or original research. Show me some citations that demonstrate how this topic can be researched and not just made up off the top of one's head and I may change my mind. Bunchofgrapes 17:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Broadly speaking, I agree with Bunchofgrapes's sentiments. Anville 17:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep' this too please it is more than a dictionary definition and it should be expanded Yuckfoo 19:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Is nothing more than a definition and I don't see how this could be expanded into an actual article of any relevance. will381796 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Bunchofgrapes. I too fail to see how this can ever be more than a dicdef with a gaggle of OR or POV examples.--Isotope23 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm thinking the same thing as everyone else who's said delete so far. And I can only imagine how many times a list of losers would be added. - Mirage5000 21:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded substantially. Dlyons493 Talk 22:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Kappa. The concept of "loser" is important and common in our culture. I've certainly seen articles which are less deserving of Wikispace. Blizzard1 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as it's a dic-def with twirly bits; I cannot see how it can be verified or expanded into a worthwhile article. Sliggy 22:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per BunchofGrapes --JAranda | yeah 23:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 00:02:05 Z
• Userfy, no? --maclean25 00:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable phrase within popular culture. Possible attractiveness to vandals is not a reason for deletion on its own. Xoloz 15:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep expand. This could become one of those lovely pop-culture articles that Wikipedia is good at (see, for example, Inherently funny word). --Jacquelyn Marie 16:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, even though the article itself is a loser. Was it Alicia Silverstone who first showed us the forefinger-thumb "L" to the forehead? This term will be a part of our era's heritage. Denni☯ 00:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Only a loser would want to delete this article ;) Roman Soldier 01:20, 11 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.