Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOLcat Translator Project


 * 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.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

LOLcat Translator Project

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website (not to be confused with the LOLCat Bible Translation Project). A mention on a blog does not meet WP:WEB. Contested speedy, bringing it here.  Sandstein  15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Amusing thought it is, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, I would say speedily under WP:WEB TrulyBlue (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn --T-rex 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Redirect to Lolcat --T-rex 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Totally childish. I gave it one of my web pages and it turned it into gibberish. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering what 'lolspeak' is, a webpage of gibberish sounds like a complete success :P. -- saberwyn 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB, has already been deleted via PROD, and I see no new sources presented, reliable or otherwise. Resolute 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleet: Non-notable websiet. translation provided by LOLcat Translator Project  D C E dwards 1966  20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that is not a very well known website but some of the people that suggested this article to be deleted seem not to be knowledgable on the subject or not having read the actual article carefuly. In particular, RHaworth claims that "Totally childish. I gave it one of my web pages and it turned it into gibberish." Well he either gave to the website a page not written in English language or he does not understand lolcat speak which is the language that is used by thousands (if not millions) of enthusiasts many of whom visit every day icanhascheezburger.com to chat in that slang/lingo/dialect or whatever you want to call it. In respect to the claim made by Resolute the article actually has new sources this is why I put it up again, I wouldn't otherwise! :) I had accepted the previous deletion due to lack of secondary or triatary references of the article 2 months ago. But I recently came across a review about that website so I decided to update the original article to cite/include this third party source and I put it up again. I understand that the changes might be small and therefore "invisible" but they are there. Furthermore, I just tried searching for "lolcat translator" in google and yahoo and in google slangaholic.com is the 7th result while in yahoo.com is the 2nd one. Considering that there are more than ten websites attempting to provide lolcat translation services this is a considerable ranking reflecting popularity. And for those that might be wondering why I chose to write an article about this particular one, the reason is that this is the translator I am using and so it happens that I know some more things about it and its quirks and thus I feel comfortable on writting an article that might help people learn something about it. EvansGeorge (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Im in Wikypeedia, deleetn ur unsorced non-notable articul! translation NOT provided by LOLcat Translator Project because it didn't work when I tried it Reyk  YO!  01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is working for me! "It iz wurkin foar meh! I iz in yur Wikipedia, deletin yur unsourceded non-notable article!" translation provided by LOLcat Translator Project 79.72.13.109 (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete LOLCATZ may b notable dis websiet izn'. itz goted noes reliable 3rd party sourcez. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 10:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. I still hold the other views as expressed on the block of text I posted above, but after reading the Wikipedia:Notability (web) page which is more specific to the subject of this article than the general Wikipedia:Notability one on which I based the update to the article and my previous commend, I agree that the 3rd party source referenced by this article does not fulfill the reliability criteria (as of Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Therefore I change my vote and agree that for this reason this article should be deleted, but I would like to ask prermission that if in the future reliable 3rd party sources become available me or others can retry to recreate an improved copy of it. Thx foar teh feedbax! EvansGeorge (talk) 12:43, 17 July 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.