Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang phrases


 * 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 no consensus. - Bobet 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Internet slang phrases

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Please note prior discussion at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Internet_slang.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Already tranwikied to Wiktionary, see Wiktionary:Transwiki:List_of_Internet_slang_phrases. Pan Dan 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could this just be a redirect? meshach 01:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, check the keep result of the previous AfD for a bunch of reasons. This article does add to wikipedia, if you look through you will see many of the phrases are blue linked through to their own wikipedia article. Mathmo Talk 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting, why is it not simply redirected to the wikitionary page, it's easier for people who come to this page. Wildpixs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.23.37.97 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment A soft redirect sounds like a good idea to me, and it seems it's even encouraged, see Soft_redirect. Pan Dan 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest Keep Oh no. I never knew some of the phrases when i saw it in wikipedia i came to know about it. --SkyWalker 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Stronger than strongest delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a list of definitions and specifically prohibited by point two of WP:NOT#DICT. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and that's what most of these are. Articles on neologisms are to be avoided. And the article already exists where it belongs, Wiktionary. The reasons for keeping offered in the last AFD ranged from no reason offered other than a bare "keep" to it's useful and it's better to have it all in one place. Nothing compelling or even reasonable offered to keep it. The fact that most of the entries are "sourced" by online dictionaries ought to be a clear indicator that this is dictionary content, not encyclopedic material. Otto4711 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent reasoning for a soft redirect to the identical wiktionary article. nadav 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete As has already been pointed out, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is a list just containing definitions of words. The policy is very clear on this matter: "Wikipedia articles are not:Lists of such definitions". You couldn't get a much clearer answer then that. We are not here to judge if the list is fun or interesting, we are here to determine if it is allowed by policy, which clearly it isn't. Those of you who think we should keep this article, please present an argument based on policy. Pax:Vobiscum 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought a soft redirect may not be the best solution in this case. How about delete this article, redirect to Internet slang, (inserted later agreeing w/ belowPan Dan 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)) and insert a wiktionary link at the top of Internet slang to Wiktionary:Transwiki:List of Internet slang phrases (which will eventually be merged into List of Internet slang phrases at which time we can change the link).  Pan Dan 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and soft redirect to the appropriate Wiktionary listing(s) OR delete and redirect to Internet slang, with a prominent cross-project link to the appropriate listing(s) -- saberwyn 11:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional: Would also support categorisation of entries in the list with articles, and/or the inclusion of the two or three most heavily cited sources as sources or external links in the Internet slang article. -- saberwyn 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. I'll agree with the last comment, a redirect to Internet slang and in that article having a link to the Wiktionary list. --Zidane2k1 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well worth keeping, just referred this to a newbie. Best thing I found via Google on the topic. The redirect to the other article proposed above, which I also looked at, would not have helped me explain this to the newbie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.133.49.11 (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep well cited glossary of internet slang. Notability asserted by references, which also takes care of any POV problems.  I know being useful is frowned upon in an essay (not a guideline or policy), but I just used this page to figure out what someone was saying on another talk page.  Transwiki'ing basically means you'll never hear from this page again, wiktionary just doesn't cut it with google searches.  Redundancy is a good thing, in this case.  Also, like someone said in the previous AfD, not that different from List of elements by symbol. - Peregrine Fisher 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. If Wiktionary can use this list, good for them.  However, this list aids in navigation and is, moreover, referenced, NPOV, NOR, etc.  WP:WINAD is inapplicable as this list is a supplement to Internet slang and a navigation aid.  -- Black Falcon 03:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On being a navigation aid, I think what you're looking for is List of Internet phenomena. Any legitimate encyclopedia article linked to from List of Internet slang phrases, like LOL (Internet slang), should be linked to from List of Internet phenomena.  Any non-legitimate (i.e. candidate for transwiki-and-delete) article that is linked to from List of Internet slang phrases should be transwikied and deleted.  On being a supplement to Internet slang, I agree, and that's exactly what the wiktionary template is for.  Pan Dan 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pwn Lugnuts 11:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per above comments. Seraphim Whipp 11:57, 17 March 2007 (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.