Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaymer

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaymer

Neologism; seems to have no currency outside the gaming community and not much inside. Benwing 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, Google seems to turn up some third-party coverage ([1], [2], [3]), so this article could possibly stay if cleaned up. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Cordesat's comments, but needs tag for cleanup. Has some notability, but needs cleanup and better sources cited. Scorpiondollprincess 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per systematic bias. Relevant and notable term in the GLBT community. Agne 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Query there are two separate issues here. [1] is the term notable? [2] is the concept notable? even the links posted above by Coredesat don't show use of the term other than in a few website names, and WP:NEO has much more stringent requirements for when a neologism should be kept -- although it could be argued that WP:NEO is too strict. Agne, do you have any sources showing that this is a notable term? as for [2], i don't know. however, the article as it currently stands has very little info in it; mostly it just defines the term and links to two sites. in general, i'd assume that for any notable subcultures X and Y there's going to be a smaller subculture X*Y; but it's not clear wikipedia needs an article about all those X*Y's. Benwing 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Kingdante87, as a Gaymer myself I feel that this article should remain up. I do recognize that it needs content including links to and from other pages. The problem is that many heterosexual gamers do not recognize gaymers (or gayming) to be real. All that this article needs to be fixed is a little more content added and maybe bring up the topic of gayming in the gaming article. I am proud to see the gay culture slowly seeping into main stream culture. As an option the gayming article could be deleted if appended to an article about gay culture.
• Keep Seems fine to me Konman72 06:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Having written a good portion of the article (and bringing it out of stub statis from a single sentence entry) I have to say that I'm glad others have as much of an interest in this topic as I do. It is important for both the gaming and gay community to have articles such as this that promote homosexual terms like gaymer as positive identifiers, rather than insults, and to help spread the word that such a community of people does indeed exist. While it may not be as pertanent of an article as some, it is nonetheless important in garnering a supportive online community for those who classify themselves as homosexual gamers. I would love to see this article grow and prosper, but if it is decided to abandon it, I would heavily suggest that the world at least be alluded to in another article. (Nall 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
• Weak delete pending more evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. And a correction: The term has been used for at least a decade for gay boardgamers, not just videogamers. WP:NOT a forum for advocacy or support groups. While gay people have notably been treated unjustly and game fans have been disparaged, I've never (in thirty years of postal and tournament boardgaming) seen discrimination or violence against gaymers per se, nor read media coverage nor academic papers about such things. The articles cited by Coredesat are the first mainstream coverage I've heard of. An accusation of "systemic bias" is not a sufficient argument to keep an article; when it's thrown around without supporting facts, it can be just another empty epithet. Barno 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with previous poster. expanding on my previous query, is there anything particularly notable about gaymers beyond e.g. subcultures composed of gay goths (nerds, bowlers, ravers, etc.) or black (native american, deaf, etc.) gamers? i assume that all groups that suffer discrimination or ill-treatment within mainstream society will form support groups devoted to particular activities or subcultures. but do we need to document every single one of these? it could even be argued that this article should be examined from the other side of the WP:BIAS issue: gay gamers (esp. of the video type) are likely to be of the same male, technically-savvy, 15-49-year-old, white-collar, industrialized-country-inhabitant type that is in general overrepresented in Wikipedia. (for example, i strongly suspect there is a vibrant deaf gay community, and arguably it's much more important than the gaymer community; and there's probably been a lot more scholarly research done on it than on gaymers. but wikipedia has no page on it, perhaps because the native language of most deaf people is asl (or some other signed language) rather than english, and they may not feel comfortable in english-dominated communities such as en.wikipedia.) Benwing 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A couple things that I would like to point out. On WP:NEO one of the criteria for inclusion is that "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term" (emphasis mine) One of the sources in the article is the university study about Gaymers--as an entity, as a group of which this terms apply. This brings the focus beyond the gay community as an extension of how the world at large relates to this sub-culture of Gaymers. Second, the systematic bias comes into play in that the term is being viewed through limited worldview that systematically excludes those things which are notable and relevant beyond those looking glasses. The Gay Community is a sizable minority and Gaymers are a notable subculture that is within that minority. It's Wikipedia's desire (As laid out in WP:BIAS) to "to fill in the gaps left by this bias, consciously focusing on those subjects and perspectives neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole.". Does the article need to be expanded? I concur and will note that Wikiproject LGBT has this on their list of articles to work on and expand. Actions like this help to counter that systematic bias instead of creating more gaps and, as a whole, Wikipedia benefits.Agne 08:20, 11 August 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.