Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamer

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. PeaceNT 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamer

Gamer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:IS_NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Jeff 19:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Phew - it's a good job this article isn't dictionary definition then. Marasmusine 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Seconding Marasmusine's argument, and also noting that the term gamer is widely used in reliable sources, see for example here. This article is just as valid as for example professional golfer, and could easily be expanded to good status. User:Krator (t c) 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete entirely original research and synthesis. While this term may be notable, I think its better off to start from scratch, with references. Corpx 04:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This article is not a dictionary. There are few references to support the article which can be further improved. Article is also not an original research since term such as Cyberathlete has several references on its own page. Cocoma 05:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Cocoma and Krator and inasmuch as, pace Corpx, where an article exists about a subject that merits an article (as this subject, I think, does, since it may properly be more than a dictionary definition and since the topic is an appropriate, notable one), we ought not to delete that article unless there is nothing therein that may serve as encyclopedic/be salvagable; there is, IMHO, a bit in the current article that is quite fine in its current form and that may be included in an article that is not marred by any OR—an article's being kept at AfD, to be sure, though, should not (necessarily) be understood as counseling against the subsequent removal or improvement of (even some non-trivial) portion of it. Joe 06:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep May need cleanup but is certainly a notable term used in reliable sources. Davewild 08:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix up. Artw 17:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep. It's in bad shape and has some ORish stuff in it, but this is how many Wikipedia articles start. Subject is clearly notable and there are plenty of reliable sources on which to base a good article. The CVG people probably ought to have an improvement drive on this article... — brighterorange (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all the keep votes above me, although I agree with Corpx that its in dire need of some sourcing and perhaps a rewrite. spazure (contribs) (review) 08:41, 31 August 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.