Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamestream

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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lamestream

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: it's a neologism and a weak pun on mainstream. However, it does get 23,700 google results (470 in groups) for me so it might be considered to be in wide use. If kept, needs to be cleaned up. - Bobet 18:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a fully used word, in wide use on the internet. This terms meaning usually must be determined by its contextual use. This is a disadvantage which Wikipedia exists to solve. The Wikipedia exists to help ellucidate and verify correct word use up to and including neologisms and puns. It gets 2 google news results, 460 group results, and 25,800 total results. This words importance is increasing in circulation and pervasiveness. Please recommend clean up proceedure for retention.- oadine 10:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) The preceeding comment was the first edit ever made by oadine (talk · contribs).
  • No, Wikipedia does not exist for verifying correct word use of neologisms and puns. For starters, word usage information is the job of a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Although the word is attested, it appears to be a simple pejorative epithet used to describe mainstream news organizations. Although I can find many instances of people referring to the mainstream media as "the lamestream media", I can find no actual sources, describing any underlying concept, that could be used to construct an encyclopaedia article. The article cites no sources at all, and the specific concept that this article ascribes to the word appears to be a novel one invented by a Wikipedia editor. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I take issue with the notion that this word is simply a "pejorative epithet used to describe mainstream news organizations." Lamestream can be used as the definition describes in more than one context. Example, Mainstream Rock and Roll (standard music industry drival) depending upon the label and artist can be categorized into Lamestream. This was evident at the end of the 80's and the beginning of the 90's with big hair bands. The Lamestream Rock and Roll movement tried to hold on while being eroded by the grundge movement. Thus it lacked relivancy but still believed it held a popular position. Another example, mainstream science education believes the Coriolis force affects water in a toilet bowl. This is incorrect and is yet another example of Lamestream science education. Lamestream is not just used for the supposed popular press it also is used as the definition defines. The popular press is just an enormous example so it was used. On another note this word could be moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikitionary an I would be satisfied with that. By the way the word Fuck is defined and used in Wikipedia not Wikitionary and I hear nobody talking about movement or deletion of it from Wikipedia. Tell me the improvements to Lamestream you would like to see and I will make it happen?- oadine 13:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism lacking encyclopedic potential. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:43, Dec. 13, 2005
• Delete. It's quite clearly a neologism if there are no secondary sources on it. Dig up some and cite them, then consider this a neutral. Otherwise, there's no reason for this to be kept on an enyclopaedia. Johnleemk | Talk 18:44, 13 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.