Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMGWTFPOLARBEAR


 * 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 of the debate was Merge and redirect to Lost (TV series), this seems to be a niche term not really appropriate for Internet slang. Deathphoenix 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The addition has been removed. I don't contest the removal of the text (that is to say, I don't care), and the history is still in the original redirect. --Deathphoenix 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OMGWTFPOLARBEAR
Somewhat notable neologism. I wasn't quite sure whether to speedy it, so I put it here. Bobby1011 17:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentGoogling it turns up 13,500 pages. Is that not notable enough? --Echo was a groupie 17:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How'd you get 13k? I only see 336. -- Krash (Talk) 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm insane. I swear, there were 13,500 earlier when I did the search.  I swear.  Or I think there were..  I don't know how it could have gone down so much so quickly.  Maybe I've finally gone mad.

But they were there...! I know it!--Echo was a groupie 03:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentSee WP:NEO. Bobby1011 17:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with the Lost article -- Ruby  18:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. per above. Cdcon 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to appropriate section. Jaxal1 19:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OMGWTFBBQ!!! Delete as neologistic. At worst, redirect to Internet slang. -- Krash (Talk) 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I love Lost and lurk a bunch of boards... but this is a niche neologism with no representation outside of Lost Board posters. Merge a definintion to Internet slang if anyone cares to, but historical context on a separate page isn't really necessary.--Isotope23 21:33, 20 February 2006 (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.