Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms


 * 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, with particular weight given to the argument of lack of sourcing, as no sources have been added since the prior no-consensus AfD where verifiability played a major part in the argument.  krimpet ⟲  00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previous nominations: Articles for deletion/MMORPG terms and acronyms and Articles for deletion/MMORPG terms and acronyms 2 The first AfD, two years ago, had a result of keep, and the second, ten months ago, resulted in no consensus. I think the phrase "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" applies here. Some of the glossaries we have in Wikipedia are encyclopedic, having detailed discussions of terms and their relationships to each other, but this is nothing more than a list of definitions. Powers T 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources, original research. Also not sure how this would be informative to anyone.Ridernyc 14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Third AfD, and I don't see any points here that weren't thoroughly discussed previously.  Ever since most of the contents of the Jargon File were added to Wikipedia at the beginning of the project, we have had a place for this sort of material.  Moreover, it isn't that a list like this is inherently unreferenceable, and indeed this has references already; rather, it's that at least some gaming sites and net resources are reliable sources for this sort of material; interpretations of WP:OR and WP:RS that don't adjust for context are the problems. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is the third AfD is not particularly relevant since the most recent one ended with no consensus. It's perfectly reasonable to attempt to achieve consensus again.  Also, the policy in question is not WP:NOR or WP:RS but WP:DICDEF.  Powers T 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a list of words and their meanings. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Seems clear cut to me. --Varlak 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article serves no purpose beyond being a list of definitions. -Chunky Rice 17:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If, like me, you agree with the official policy WP:NOT, then delete. However, I will point out that the relevant bit of that policy, concerning lists of definitions, is currently in dispute, so WP:NOT doesn't really apply here. Furthermore, I note that mysterious acronyms abound in the world of RPGs, and it's reasonable that people might go to Wikipedia expecting to find out what they mean. -Amatulic 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the bit on WP:NOT is in dispute, but that section is just a summary of the actual policy page at WP:DICDEF, which clearly states "Wikipedia is not a ... slang [or] jargon ... guide." Powers T 19:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I don't see many reliable sources being able to be put in this article. Its mostly Cruft anyway. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Regardless of if WP:NOT is in dispute, WP:NOT applies here. None of these terms are notable outside of gaming. The main source is the World of Warcraft site, which is basically a primary source, and does nothing to demonstrate the terms are used in other games. Yes, I know they are, but you wouldn't be able to tell from the sourcing. -- Kesh 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of this doesn't appear to be a "dictionary" insofar as the acronyms are concerned, such that nobody is consulting it for a precise definition of "WTF" or "LOL". The problem here appears to be that it also includes a glossary of game terms, which aren't used as part of the quickly moving game.  I suppose the answer would be to censor that part in order to make it Wikceptable to the purists, but since it's not primarily a dictionary, deletion is unwarranted.  Mandsford 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep yet another cleanup request masquerading as an AfD. Yes, there are certain corners of Wikipedia which attract unsourced silliness. No, you cannot delete them just because of that. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 02:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * who said anything about cleanup, this actually one the few lists I've ever seen on here that needs almost no cleanup. IN fact if the content was encyclopedic I would say it should be a featured list. Ridernyc 05:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete it is clearly lacking in sources - one of the viatl standards of inclusion in WP; the sources that are included seem only to refer to WoW, so the title 'terms in MMORPGs' is inaccurate if the article is kept; I completely disagree with the rationale that "doesn't appear to be a "dictionary" insofar as the acronyms are concerned, such that nobody is consulting it for a precise definition" - the articles ONLY purpose is to function as a 'dictionary' - as a source of meaning for the terms listed. (although I do agree with Amatulic's comment that games abound with mysterious terms and people might expect to find some answers here.) 207.69.137.38 03:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and a properly referenced discussion and analysis of those terms and their cultural relevance might be encyclopedic. Powers T 13:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate sandbox list, WP:NOT, WP:NOT - ∅  ( ∅ ), 01:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP has some elements that overlap with a dictionary, and this is appropriately one of them. DGG (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:NOR. Not very well sourced either.  Captain   panda  04:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki contents to Wiktionary. Wiktionary, unlike Wikipedia, has been founded with the stated aims of maintaining word definitions, including slang and would be an appropriate home for this information. Asperal 09:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as collection of mostly-unreferenced dictionary definitions, and for the various other reasons stated above. Terraxos 04:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced and nonnotable cruft. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Pilotbob 22:51, 28 October 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.