Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication

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

WP:NOT a dictionary. This was brought up exactly two years ago. Sceptre (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Delete as a recreation. Multiple AFDs on similar lists previously, here, here, and finally here.  The list was deleted at the last one.  Given that a very similar list was AFD deleted, I would consider this a recreation, even if the "specific to" part makes it some sort of subset.  A subset of deleted material is still deleted material.  I'm too involved to act myself given my work over the last year or so to maintain the many soft redirects to Wiktionary that developed out of the AFD, but I do beleive that this qualifies as a recreation, and thus is CSD bait. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strike the speedy part. This list is not a recreation, as it long predates the previous AFDs on the broader list.  I still think it should be deleted for all the reasons that the broader list was deleted.  Just a bunch of dictionary definitions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I just used this page today to figure out some obscure shorthand that was used on a page here on WP. Since all we do here is thread-based communication, I can't think of a more useful list to have around to make sure that shorthand by experienced users doesn't make new people fell as if they've been bitten through the use of superfluous jargon. It may need to be sourced, but should qualify under WP:IAR because it is necessary for building the encyclopedia.  Jim Miller  See me 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, we need some kind of page on the topic, to redirect all the terms; I don't think soft redirects to Wiktionary were a good idea in the first place. This isn't a glossary any more than List of baseball jargon and its 27(!) subarticles, or Tennis terminology is. We allow such articles because they are not simple glossaries, and nor is this. Needs referencing, but AFD isn't cleanup. Neıl    ☄   20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "I used this page today" is not a viable argument for keep. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Try finding any source that GEBAPB is commonly used, and means "Get Eaten By A Polar Bear" and I will change to "Keep".-Inzweep (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete although I made an edit just now in case it's kept, I'm of the opinion that this really needs to go. JuJube (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or at best Transwiki to Wiktionary, though I suspect Wiktionary already has coverage of the terms in this article. We're not a dictionary. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning towards delete, as much as I wouldn't like to have to say so. True, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that's a very important point. The list is also not cited well, and I'm sure some of these terms are used outside thread-based communication. Also, with the List of computing and IT abbreviations list, in comparison, the terms in that list have their own articles, whereas most of them here don't. This just seems like a mixture of leet and 4chan-style slang (which do overlap considerably) with no clear boundaries for inclusion.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I can't really see anything besides LOL ever expanding beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:06, 7 August 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.