Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Girl gamer (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hasteur (talk | contribs) at 23:42, 10 July 2010 (→Girl gamer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:42, 10 July 2010 by Hasteur (talk | contribs) (→Girl gamer)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Girl gamer

AfDs for this article:
Girl gamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No explanation of significance. If we leave this like it is, we might as well have Girl Carpenter, Girl Scientist, Guy Make-up Artist, etc. The Guy Gamer article was deleted, so there is a clear gender-inequality issue. There is nothing unique about "girl gamers" other than the fact that they are a smaller percentage than gamers that are guys. Like I said, if this stands, we might as well start an article for every gender that is a minority in some activity or hobby.

In addition, the term "Gamer Girl" is not used in any credible source. Of the two sources in this article, one only uses "Girl gamers" to reference gamers that are girl, not as a specific term. The other link is broken.

The only people to use the term "Girl Gamer" are attention-seeking women only using gaming as a medium for themselves to attract other's attention. The first line of the article defines a gamer girl as a girl who games. However, this is incorrent, as is the rest of the article, because there are plenty of girls that game that are not 'girl gamers'. They are just gamers. Gamer girls are not all girls that play games, but rather that attention-seeking people that I mentioned above. Also, if a community using a term makes that term valid and worthy of an article, we should make an article for Pubfag, etc.

However, since this is not mentioned in any major publication, since it would just be an attack column. No one would write an article about this, because it is just something that exists in the community of gamers that exists. There are gamers - male and females. Then, there are so-called "gamer girls", which are in fact not gamers, but attention-lovers.

Additionally Gamer girl itself is a tautology as mentioned by another editor on the discussion page because "gamer" does not exclude girls. If not deleted, this could be merged into a serperate article like "Gender in gaming", or a subheading in the Gamer article called Gender In Gaming. --Knovevmber (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


"Girl gamer" is at the very least a valid search term and when Nintendo releases a magazine titled "Girl Gamer" and publications such as Edge discuss the "girl gamer market" it is clear that it is indeed a recognisable neologism and not in every instance an incidental combination of noun and adjective. The nominator's rationale rests on "no sources" which is evidently not true and the rest can be disregarded as opinionated original research. Again, the term receives non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources, passes WP:V and WP:N and warrants coverage if not an entire article on Misplaced Pages. bridies (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Nominator used wrong capitalization. DMacks (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. Topic is clearly notable, as evidenced by several conferences with academic research and organizations with groups specifically dedicated to it (linked in article). But then we'll have to create a zillion other X in Y articles--yes, as soon as there are sources demonstrating that it's a notable topic. There really are given sources that specifically focus on the female aspect here, not just two columns of parallel data, so cloning it and swapping every gendered word, as appears to have been the WP:POINTy genesis of Guy Gamer, isn't an automatic keeper if the girl article survives. The term itself does not even need to be used (although others say it is used), per WP:NOTNEO policy, as long as it clearly describes the topic. However, some of the issues really are gender-comparison-related (or at least also highlight the current male-dominance of the field). There is an active discussion on article talk-page involving several ideas for renaming to something involving the term "gender" instead of highlighting one particular one--that doesn't require an AFD to resolve. DMacks (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as arguments above that other have written on. Do not rename to gender in gaming, as people have no problem finding the topic under girl gamer. There would be no opposition to girl carpenter if other people had written about this topic, so this argument that other stuff does not exist is irrelevant, each topic has its own merits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Although AFD is not really the place to discuss page moves, for the record I also oppose moving to "Gender and gaming". No convincing argument has thus far been provided in support of such a move and a WP:GOOGLE of the term counts for nothing. bridies (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


information Administrator note The AFD was never listed in the first place. It has now been listed on today's (July 10) list of AFDs. –MuZemike 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - Pointy nomination. The editor has said on the talk page that the REAL reason he wants the article deleted is that there is no "Guy Gamer" article anymore. His rationale is not based in policy, but in the fact that he is offended by perceived sexism against males. Others have demonstrated that the topic has been studied and mentioned in news and scholarly works, and is thus notable. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    Comment - Treading on the edge of NPA and AGF here. Let's focus on the article and not the nominator putting it up Hasteur (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Categories: