Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glomp (2nd nomination)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 7 to keep, 12 to delete (including the nominator). This is a very thin margin, and a renomination to get a wider sense of the community would not be out of order. -- BD2412 talk 04:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Glomp
Non-encyclopedic neologism; little more than a dictionary definition. Oh, don't worry if we delete it, Urban Dictionary has 12 definitions. Paul 05:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. anyone citing this as a reason to keep should eat cruft.
 * Delete, rambling dicdef. --Angr/undefined 05:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, real method of showing affection. Kappa 06:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, interesting and informative, particularly in relation to anime fandom and internet culture. Some of it probably should be rewritten to sound more encyclopedic, though. Kamezuki 06:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per かめずき.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a dictionary entry and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Colinmac 13:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Paul. Sad as I am to lose an article which contains the enlightening example Tape this to your butt; I'm going to go on the other side of the room and glomp you, it is indeed a rambling dictionary definition. Peeper 15:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a dictdef.  This is a dictdef.  Granted, the etymology and examples belong there more than they do here, but most of this article is encyclopedic in nature. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary.  The encyclopedic content is not very encyclopedic, and what's at stake here is a pop culture ephemera.  Where is the documentary evidence?  Where is the verification?  Is this original research, or can we find references?  Geogre 16:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia attempts to be an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. --Mecanismo 17:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting and more than a dicdef. It could use some cleanup and expansion, though.-Fang Aili 18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Glomp then weak delete, per Geogre. I agree with Peeper about the enlightening example.  Barno 19:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless, ephemeral forumese that will doubtless soon disappear. This belongs on Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Dottore So 19:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not verified, no sources.  Non-notable even if verified. Quale 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Rubbish examples and dictdef. Unless you can go into the origins of the glomp and it's significance in the world outside of cosplay, I think it would warrant an article.  But it seems very neologist to me. - Hahnchen 00:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems more than a dictdef to me, includes history, etc. --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 02:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable IRCruft. Nandesuka 04:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As much as I'd like the phenomenon to go away, this is, sadly, widely-known in anime circles and is widespread especially at cons. And the article itself seems fine.  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  19:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Think: is anyone going to care about this word/"phenomenon" in a few years? This kind of stuff is going to hurt Wikipedia in the future. WP can either be a legitimate encyclopedia or a snapshot of what 12 year olds were talking about in the early 21st century. Paul 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Perhaps this should be moved to the Wiktionary until such time as more information about the subject can be appended. --ThatNateGuy 00:02, 13 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.