Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IANAL (2nd 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 Keep (non-admin closure). D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

IANAL
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also runs afoul of WP:NEO as, while there are many sources that use the term there do not appear to be reliable sources that are substantively about the term. Previous AFD closed as keep on the strength of such arguments as "I found it useful and interesting," which are not strong arguments, or bare "keep" votes. Otto4711 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Clear violation of WP:NOT. Perhaps it could also be included in something like List of Internet Acronyms if it were kept on Wikipedia. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term is considered among the "most popular" internet acronyms, and it has both an interesting origin and a substantive real-world import (in contrast, say, to "IMHO"). I've begun sourcing and expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Popular" is not the standard for inclusion. And to again reference WP:NEO: "To support...an article about...a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Otto4711 (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I said "most popular" because, in fact, I added a reliable secondary source saying so. It would do you well to track whether the article has changed during an AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mister Snarky, I do keep track of the articles regardless of whether I'm snarkily advised to or not. I notice that most of the sourcing that's been added is for such things as who said "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV," which is certainly important to source but has very little to do with the actual subject of the article. My point still stands, that even if the acronym is insanely popular, popularity does not equal notability and how popular it is has absolutely no relevance as to whether the article should be kept. You've been doing these long enough, you really ought to know better than to try to pass off that kind of rotten argument. Otto4711 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The term is beyond wp:neo at this point, and has transended a few blogs (slashdot) and websites. It is a little weak granted, but you see the phrase everywhere, and it has spawned other phrases.  A quick googling shows the phrase is used in many other areas as well.  It is the 'defacto disclaimer' in the internet world, and the broad usage (216,000 ghits, which is nothing to sneeze at) has to say something about notability.  It really doesn't belong in a dictionary, as it is more than a simple definition.  It hasn't hit the level of snafu or fubar but the bar for notability isn't that high. Yes, the article needs work, and that is also a defacto non-reason for deletion.  It could be better researched, cited and written.  Pharmboy (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect--just jargon. JJL (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have never heard of that before and I don't think I ever will. Non-notable for an encyclopedia. Tavix (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So everything that you've never heard of should be deleted? Are you kidding me?  I assume then that you'd vote delete for Cramér–Rao bound too?  99.9999999% of people will never hear of that in their lifetime (how many people do graduate work in signal processing?) and even less will understand it.  Cburnett (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep with Dhartung's improvement, and sources. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep More than a dictionary definition. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Popularity, age, and hilarity (lol, anal) are irrelevant. Length of the article is also irrelevant. Don't be wowed by its long article, people; the content, however long, is in clear violation of WP:NOT and WP:NEO. An article should not exist just to 1) define a term (WP:NOT#DICT) 2) advise how it's used - "Wikipedia is not a jargon or usage guide" (WP:NOT#DICT) 3) describe its etymology (WP:NEO). This article does all of these but nothing else. Triple whammy. It should be archived as a good example of a terrible jargon article, but it should be deleted nonetheless. TheBilly (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]
 * Comment Be aware that WP:NEO applies to terms that are not yet in dictionaries. IANAL, however, appears in several. --Dhartung | Talk 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, I simply don't buy any of the delete arguments. Could it use some work?  Of course, what article couldn't?  Cburnett (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, It's like LOL but slightly less known. 80.192.11.98 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is a referenced article that survived an earlier discussion. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The existence of references in an otherwise unsuitable article is irrelevant. Its survival of an earlier AFD, on such poor arguments as were offered then, is irrelevant because consensus can change. Try making an argument that actually addresses the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 02:22, 5 January 2008 (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.