Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hater (Internet)
The article is misinformative, and it's 100% |OR. First, the problematic scope. The slang word ''hater'' isn't specific to Internet culture; it's just another context in which the word is used. The section "Definition and origin" is entirely about usage outside Internet culture. But okay, the article says it has a different meaning in the Internet context, so I'll play along.The whole article hinges on the definition in the lead section. It cites Michael Strangelove (2010), who offers this definition: "a person who posts rude and often racist, sexist, homophobic, or obscene messages". Notice that his only necessary and sufficient condition for "hating" is to post "rude" messages. So a hater is someone who posts rude messages. This is not a rigorous definition, and it's also not the definition offered in the article's lead section. The lead section is supposed to be the keystone for the whole article."Difference between a troll and a hater" cites one source: a definition of ''Internet troll|trolling''. Any definition of ''hater'' in the section is conjecture (complete with weasely language like "normally..." and "many people now consider..."). Not helpful. The section "Cause of a hater's action" strays into murkier waters. This time, the citations are about hate crimes and cyberbullying; how the "hater" fits into all this is left to the imagination of the reader. At worst, the |OR in this section implies that a hater is one who commits a hate crime. It also implies that a hater is a sort of cyberbully, but that disagrees with the definition offered in "Definition and origin". (Wait, so are cyberbullies a type of hater, or are haters a type of cyberbully? Damn, maybe we should have thought this through!) Watery implications on a foundation of sand.The "Incidents" section is a summary of a case of online harassment. By implication, Caroline Criado-Perez is a hater. Let's all add to this section so we can make a Wall of Haters. Totes encyclopedic.Finally, the article ominously concludes with a "Law" section about the punitive consequences of posting "indecent, obscene or menacing" material if you're a UK citizen. (Presumably, a hater is someone who posts material that is indecent, obscene, and/or menacing. How many possible definitions are we dealing with now?) So if you're not a UK citizen, don't even ''think'' about moving to the UK if you're a hater, or it could cost you £5,000. Consider yourself deterred.Is there encyclopedic material in work like Nussbaum's ''The Offensive Internet''? Certainly. But what encyclopedia article(s) should come from them? I don't know, but it's probably not "Hater (Internet
— User:Ringbang, 19:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOR||WP:NOR (Wikipedia:No original research)