Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Player hater (2nd nomination)

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 Soft-redirect to Wiktionary, who can write a new definition or view the history of this if they want -- not much point wasting time going through the official Transwiki process due to the limited content. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:25Z

[edit] Player hater (2nd nomination)

Player hater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I previously nominated this for deletion on October 25, 2006, and the result was "no consensus." Since then, absolutely no effort has been made to make the article any more encyclopedic in content or in references. It remains a poorly attested neologism with unencyclopedic content. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Transwiki - Don't hate the player, hate the game. --PresN 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It aint no neologism son, y u all hatin? It has been seen on the New York Times and nets a cool 145k ghits for "Player hater" and 60k for "playa hater" and 50k for "playa hata". Perhaps move to wikitionary ?Bakaman 18:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not possible to write an article on this topic, even if there were sources. What would the sections be? History of player hating? Notable player haters? Recury 19:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Of course it is possible; the content of the article would be about the neologism itself. Tarinth 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It would have to be a damned important neologism to warrant an article on how its a neologism. It's not. Get rid of this crap. Recury 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation unless the article is significantly improved during the course of this AfD. I think the phrase definitely merits an article - it has a very real place in pop culture - but right now the article is no better than an urban dictionary entry. It looks like nothing more than someone's personal take on what the phrase means. --Hyperbole 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- Is there a list that this can be put on?--SUIT 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this unsourced twaddle. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Danny Lilithborne 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary per WP:DICDEF. —ShadowHalo 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary; Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I really can't see how you can make a full article for this topic. TSO1D 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because it's a neologism that has entered widespread usage. However, the article needs some sources that talk about the neologism as a neologism, not merely sources that use the term. Tarinth 01:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per ShadowHalo, it's a simple dicdef, and seems unlikely to ever be more than a simple dicdef. Xtifr _tälk 02:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki while not a neologism, it still doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article. Koweja 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Not a neologism, but it's a dicdef - and we aren't a dictionary. --Dennisthe2 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what exactly all these "transwiki" votes want transwikied. Are these actually votes of confidence that the article properly defines "Player hater"? Because I don't think it does - I think it's one single random and perhaps nonstandard opinion, akin to an urbandictionary entry - which is why I !voted delete. --Hyperbole 07:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Transwiki option is not so much a vote that the definition is correct as stands and should be migrated to another wiki, it's simply a vote that it should to be migrated to another wiki. Whether it's correct... well, I guess that's up to the editors on Wiktionary in this particular case. =^_^= Not to say that it should be transwiki'd if it's incorrect; it should be correct, natch. --Dennisthe2 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Things don't get deleted just because they are incorrect or incomplete - they get fixed. The first step towards fixing this is to get it on the right site - which is Wiktionary. The editors there will correct it and bring it up to their standards. Koweja 00:43, 31 December 2006 (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.