Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AL (actually laughing)


 * 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. Black Kite 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

AL (actually laughing)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Deproded. A non notable neologism. "external" links aren't really persuasive either Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find any references for this, or any mentions in the external link(s). Seems to be a made up word, which isn't in common usage (per the article itself). - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:NEOLOGISM that irreparably fails verifiability. I can't find any reliable sources for this neologism, and I doubt that we will be able to find any. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Defense against deletion Because of how recently AL has become a part of everyday lingo, there has not been much research or academic study on "AL" YET, therefore there are not very many credible sources for its legitimacy, that much is true. The UrbanDictionary external link has been added, which states blatantly that in 2004 someone, other than myself, stated that AL indeed does stand for "actually laughing", and that its use does in fact match up with the use that is described in the Wiki article. This article definitely does not deserve to be deleted and is a work in progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altox012 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken. I'm concerned that you're a brand new account after another brand new account nearly got blocked. But I want to make clear, for purposes of this AfD that's irrelevant to me. Your reasons are persuasive, except that they need some reliable sources to back them up. If you could produce those it would be appreciated. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: appears to be made up, I have certainly never heard or seen this neologism used. Inherent lack of reliable sources means that this will never pass the general notability guidelines. UrbanDictionary is one of the weakest sources I have ever seen. -- Big  Dom  08:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Work in progress or not, the bottom line is that the term is not notable. It's simply a neologism that hasn't caught any mainstream attention. Any alleged notability for the term has so far been unverifiable. I couldn't find any reliable references either. New slang is made up all the time, and we can't have an article on everything. Come to think of it, I think that the only term similar to AL that actually has an article is LOL. &mdash; Ledgend  Gamer  08:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources I understand where you are coming from, but with a matter such as this, an acronym that has been proven to have been in circulation as far back as 2004, there is not going to be many scholarly or credible (by normal standards) sources. Even if one was to search for sources to back up "LOL", the vast majority, if not absolutely every piece of information out there would be judged as non-reliable and not credible, because the standards that are in place for what constitutes a credible source do not apply to items such as a text-message based acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altox012 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment However, the difference is that the article on LOL does in fact have reliable sources. No, not every source that turns up in a google search will be reliable, but they exist. Fact of the matter is that I cannot, nor can others, find a single reliable source for this term. The policies of notability and verifiability apply to every single article on Wikipedia, and unless they can be met (i.e., a reliable source can be shown for this term), this article cannot be kept. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It needs to be notable in terms of having caught mainstream attention and being referenced by reliable sources (see WP:RS), and that does not appear to be the case (I know personal experience is not sufficient to judge, but I've never received an email, a text, an IM, or any electronic communication with "AL" in it myself - though I've had thousands of LOLs, LMAOs, ROFLs etc) . However, if some reliable sources can be found, I'd then suggest making it a redirect to LOL, in the same way as LMAO and ROFL - there is far more WP:UNDUE detail in the article as it stands (There's no "Official Origins", for example, as there is no official text acronym body, and some of it is just talking of text acronyms in general) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional The article also seems to be largely WP:OR - it contains quite a few specific factual assertions that are not sourced, eg: "Recent history has shown..." - where? "research has shown..." - let's see it. "AL was started several years ago by two teens in the small town of Walker, Minnesota" - who says? "The abbreviation was first used in a Windows Live Messenger conversation" - how can you know that? etc -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NEO, WP:OR. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. — Rankiri (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Rankiri took the words right out of my mouth. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per being not notable. I think that sometimes people say "ALOL" (particularly if they're talking to someone named Allen or Alison or Albert or Alex), which is nothing more than a variant of LOL.  Just as the AL and the NL go together in baseball, in this case I'm NL (not laughing). Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2010 (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.