Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang phrases (3rd nomination)

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 delete; the article has been transwiki'd. krimpet ⟲ 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet slang phrases

Suggesting deletion because this is an improper content fork -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang guide, as explicitly stated in official WP:NOT policy. Burntsauce 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Or DLT) per WP:NOT and WP:POVFORK. STORMTRACKER 94 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I'm missing something... from which article is this a content and/or POV fork? --Iamunknown 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an improper content fork of the Internet slang article, sorry I thought that much was obvious. Burntsauce 22:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. I must be dense. ;) I disagree that it is an improper content fork, as lists are regularly forked. I am, however, undecided on whether it fails WP:NOT (if so, it would be improper whether or not it were a fork).

Looking at WP:NOT, however, it does say that the prohibition on "lists of definitions" is currently disputed, and I don't that this article qualifies as a slang usage guide (as it doesn't teach anyone how to use l33t sp43k, but rather lists definitions of Internet slang). Anyways, don't know yet. But thanks for pointing that out to me. :) --Iamunknown 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR or transwiki to wiktionary. I am aware that this list breaches a few guidelines, but as a disambiguation editor, I'd point out how often you have to link some abbrevation or acronym on a dab page somewhere, and this list used to be my perfect dumping ground. It is much less painful to direct over-eager editors to the right wikipage instead of removing the internet abbrevations from dab pages every other day. I as a non-chatter (would) also find this list WP:USEFUL. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I use popups to disambiguate, one of the options is a Wikitonary link, like wikt:LOL. Would that be an acceptable alternative? --NE2 01:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete not a fork, but WP:USEFUL. JJL 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete collection of dicdefs. Most of these are probably over at Wikitionary already, although if any important examples are missing they could be transwikied first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It certainly violates WP:NOT policy as a list of slang definitions, but I find it useful as well. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is on wiktionary in some form [1]. Perhaps we can do a soft redirect, assuming the Wiktionary list is valid? Bfigura ^(talk) 01:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, guys, whenever I need a cool new phrase to start saying online, this page is totally where I go....okay, not really. Delete GlassCobra 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:NOT. Xihr 04:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that should be noted is that this page is not a "clear" violation of WP:NOT; the relevant bullet point of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" ("Lists of such definitions") is currently disputed. --Iamunknown 04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this violates the spirit if not the letter of WP:NOT, I think it is consensually agreed that we should not be hosting specialized slang lexicons. RFerreira 08:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read this page a while back for its content, and I found it useful. I know that's an "argument to avoid", but I don't think we should delete pages just because they are lists instead of articles. It's really a shame that, after all the work that's been done to find a reference for every single phrase, it's all going to be thrown away over what, to me, are relatively insignificant concerns. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find it WP:USEFUL you will be happy to know that the transwiki process is complete for this page. You can always refer back to Wiktionary if you need to look up the definition of an internet slang phrase. There is no reason to harbor this non-encyclopedic list any longer. Burntsauce 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the page is heavily sourced, and for all those citing WP:NOT: there isn't a current consensus that lists of dicdefs are unencyclopedic. So I don't think that should be used as a deletion reason until consensus develops Bfigura ^(talk) 13:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Changing mind to delete, see below --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per WP:LC points 2, 3, 4 and 6. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki listings belong in wiktionary.jonathon 23:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Shalom, it is a shame to see the deletionist go crazy and delete good articles like this which have had so much work put into them. No good reason for deletion. What happened to the good old days, WP:IAR? THE KING 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few simple points to be made. Deletionists aren't going "crazy". This is not an article. It is a list, a list of dictionary definitions. Dictionary definitions belong in a dictionary, and this list of definitions has already been migrated to Wiktionary. There is no valid reason to "ignore all rules" in this case, as the content has not been lost. If WP:YOULIKEIT, nothing is preventing you from visiting Wiktionary and referring to it over there. Burntsauce 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Shalom. Emc² • contact me 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, "Wikipedia articles are not slang guides". Some seriously weak keep arguments here, especially considering this violates policy. Crazysuit 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Belongs on urban dictionary dot com, not on Wikipedia. Mindraker 20:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since this has been transwikied, and is a borderline case of WP:NOT. Saying borderline here as it's partly a slang guide (bad), and partly sourced glossary (possibly ok, per discussion over at WP:NOT). --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a toughie for me. Usually, List of ____ sends up the deletionist red flag. However, I can't help but feel a bit of that argument I hate. There are loads of internet acronym dictionaries out there, so there is no huge speciality to this content. However, if I was curious about some, I would come to WP to check for a list before somewhere else. So as much as I hate using this, it's useful. I even just linked tl;dr, which is how I noticed this was up for deletion. I notice DICDEF being cited here. That really doesn't apply, as that means we dont have articles on every word with just a definition. I'm going to go away from my usual tendencies, and say to keep this article. As a side note, it will be extremely (and bitterly) ironic if the WP:NOT arguments work here, but they don't when there's a huge, raving fan base of editors defending the article. i ^said 04:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just checking, you're all aware WP:USEFUL is one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, right? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 16:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes. But as it says there, something like WP:USEFUL "should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments" and in my opinion this is a case where its sufficiently WP:USEFUL (and relevant to a computer-medium encyclopedia, where I just had to look up CMIIW via Google a few minutes ago as it was used on another talk page) that it might over-ride the basic bias against using the argument/reason. An encyclopedia lists its own internally-used abbrieviations not because tehy're encyclopedic but because they are necessary, and understanding computer-ese is oftentimes necessary to navigate discussions here. Still, I continue to (weakly) favor deletion for just this reason: Utility is insufficient justification for keeping it. JJL 17:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thisis the subject area where WP had the greatest strength from the beginning, and is still the mostreliable source of information. Even as an exception, this page should be kept. DGG (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) The part of WP:NOT prohibiting "lists of defintions" is disputed, because there exist dozens of glossaries which are properly encyclopedic. 2) This is not a guide on how words, idioms, etc. should be used, but a document which describes how they are used; this is a difference which distinguishes a violation of WP:NOT from an encylopedic article. 3) The existence of anything similar on Wiktionary should not have any bearing on this article. Just like categories and lists can complement each other, so too can glossaries on Wikipedia and definitions on Wiktionary complement each other. Redundancy is not always bad. 4) "There are some times when 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information 'useful'." DHowell 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or soft redirect - as previously stated by Burntsauce, the article is useful whether it is here, or at Wiktionary. The article has been transwiki'd already, so a soft redirect could be used to redirect to Wiktionary, preserving the page's history. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. As long as editors continue to use these ridiculous initials in discussions on talk pages, I find the list useful in order to translate various imho, afaik, fwiw, etc. comments. Maybe move it from the main article space to the WP space. — DIEGO ^talk 06:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list can already be accessed on Wiktionary. The list is just as helpful there as here, only Wikipedia is not a dictionary. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 14:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'Nuff said †Bloodpack† 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. i ^{(soon to be Soleil)} 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per Pseudo daoist - although the article actually seems to be a mix of computing and network terminology, slang, "leet" and mms speak. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been transwikied. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 14:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as collection of dictionary definitions, and a fairly indiscriminate one at that. Yes, it's useful, but it'll be just as useful with the content moved to Wiktionary. A link to the Wiktionary list should be placed prominently on the Internet slang article, and this page redirected there. I don't think this list is even particularly helpful as a navigation aid between the related articles, since we already have Category:Internet slang for that purpose. Terraxos 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not indiscriminate at all. Internet slang → List of Internet slang phrases. Most internet slang phrases will not have their own articles, so the list is very helpful. Tim Q. Wells 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how this managed to make it to a third nomination I will never know. WP:NOT a dictionary, trivia guide, lolcats archive... etc... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Transwiki - Currently the section of WP:NOT that would cover this article is under dispute. Also it is not not a fork but a spinoff of the main article. Given the length of the main article and the lack of sources / citations there, I think that merging a trimmed down (and cited) subset from this list may be the best solution, and link or redirect to the wiktionary for the rest. PaleAqua 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of listcruft/dictdefcruft out there, and this article is just the tip of the iceberg. Unless we change the policy, deletion is called for. Jack^(Lumber) 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have the article Internet slang and then a list of internet slang (phrases), so this is not an inappropriate content fork. WP:NOT says Wikipedia is not a slang guide, but this list happens to be on slang words and is a more appropriate content-fork than many other lists on Wikipedia. If it does violate WP:NOT then we should keep it per IAR. There are many similar lists that I doubt would be deleted: [2]. This is also an extremely useful list. There are many redirects to it, where if a reader is uncertain of a certain slang phrase, he/she can search for it on Wikipedia and be directed to this list right to the entry of the phrase. See IIRC for example. It would be a great loss to Wikipedia to lose this list. Tim Q. Wells 22:47, 29 October 2007 (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.

List of Internet slang phrases

zproxy.org