Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Daystar (hacker culture)

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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Daystar (hacker culture)

Unverified non-notable neologism/dicdef. This search returns a lot of mirrors and other sites probably not consider reliable sources. Even if it is a term it wide use it should be moved to Wiktionary. --CrypticBacon 21:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Already in Wiktionary, actually. I'll add a link accordingly. If this is deleted, Daystar (the disambiguation page) should be updated to have a link to Sun in place of the link to this article. My vote is Keep, because this term is not a neologism. I've found use of the term (in this sense) on USENET as early as 1999; earlier usage might be found with a more thorough search. Here are some early (1999/2000) uses I've found:

Reference from 2000: [1] Another reference from 2000: [2] From 1999: [3]

For reference, better search terms than "daystar hacker" would be something like "evil Daystar" or "rumors of the Daystar". Those appear to be the primary early usage contexts, although we cannot discount "Daystar" by itself. Unfortunatly, the prevalence of other meanings makes it hard to distinguish. "Hacker" as as search term is pretty useless, though; there's no indication that "hacker" would be likely to be found in close proximity to "daystar". Powers 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Ok, so even if it's verified, notable, and not a neologism, isn't it still just a dicdef? I mean, how is this word, as a concept or an idea, notable? My vote still stands for delete. --CrypticBacon 07:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  It's hard to say. I'm not entirely clear on what constitutes a dicdef, really. I'm not going to put up a big fuss if the consensus is to delete. =) Powers 12:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I think it is certainly not a neologism and has seen decently widespread usage. I'm pretty sure you could count the Penny Arcade strip where tycho is in all black with his girlfriend and a motorcycle helmet and buys ice cream in the same light (even if it does not specifically use daystar), but I cannot seem to find it on short notice. Can this grow beyond a dicdef? I'm not sure... thus the neutral. kotepho 17:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The comic in question does not use the phrase, just "star". Nifboy 18:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge into Daystar as a dicdef. Nifboy 18:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: *raised eyebrow* I'm not sure this needs its own article. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This might not be the most remarkably notable term, but it can still probably be fleshed out into something beyond a mere dicdef. -Rikoshi 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Mukadderat 18:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - top three google entries are from wikipedia. -- infinity0 21:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 13:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dicdef Eivind^t@c 18:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it can be expanded. How did the term originate and such. Dicdef only applies if the page can never be more then a dicdef. -M^ask File:Flag of Alaska.svg 18:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. Nothing encyclopedic to say about this piece of jargon. Henning Makholm 23:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef, plus I hang out in geek circles and have never heard anyone say this. Catamorphism 03:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Catamorphism. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 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.