Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banhammer (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 November 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect to Ban_(law)#Banning_in_games_and_Internet_Forums. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banhammer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to have any sources that establish the notability of the term. PC World ref doesn't use the word. Bungie.net just mentions that they have a "banhammer tool," doesn't discuss. Is considered trivial coverage. GamePro article doesn't use the word in the article, which is about an anti-cheating patch. Slashdot isn't a reliable source, but even if it were,t he source is just a search for the word "banhammer." The fifth is a fansite, thus not enough to establish notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is clearly a neologism (disallowed under WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary), so those arguing for the article to be kept will have to demonstrate that the word has itself been the subject of scholarly attention. Otherwise this is just a cutesy way of saying "ban". Abductive (reasoning) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does not need scholarly attention, any more than any other Wikipedia topic does, but it does need published attention of some sort. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, any secondary source is scholarly. I am not saying that scholars are confined to academia or anything like that. Abductive (reasoning) 05:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs on Wiktionary. Evil saltine (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page could be redirected to Ban (law)#Banning in games and Internet Forums as the best alternative to deletion. Cunard (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per Marasmusine and comment below. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Seems the original version of this article was deleted in early 2006 and sneaked back in for recreation without anyone noticing. Really, this isn't the place. There might be a lot of internet memes in the Wikipedia category, but they all have some kind of physical substance behind them or very specific event attached. They're mostly "general public terms" that anyone could use, but this is far too niche in comparison. Ship this to Wiktionary if anyone feels like it. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you object to a redirect to Ban (law)#Banning in games and Internet Forums? Cunard (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect suggested by Cunard is a good idea for now. Marasmusine (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. How that fits into the tone of the rest of a very serious article over there I do not know, but it is a separate matter than the AfD. It's not a GA or FA so I don't think the unusual tone shouldn't hurt anyone for a bit :) ♪ daTheisen (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect cunard suggests would make perfect sense. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for soft redirect to Wiktionary personally. (See wikt:Banhammer). But whichever way it goes, this needs to be a redirect of some kind because plausible search terms shouldn't be redlinks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Ban_(law)#Banning_in_games_and_Internet_Forums where there is already encyclopedic coverage, and, if an editor of that page wants, have banhammer, "banstick," or "banbomb", from there redirect to wiktionary entries. Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect works for me; it's a likely search term. Chutznik (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cunard, to the likely object of the search. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.