Deletion of Gaymer

Comment: A couple things that I would like to point out. On  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 ) 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:BIAS)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: 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  has much more stringent requirements for when a neologism should be kept -- although it could be argued that  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NEO)

Comment: per |systematic bias. Relevant and notable term in the GLBT community
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)