Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pwn (2nd nomination)


 * 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.

A quick summary of the arguments:


 * Keep: verifiable, contains references; (invalid): WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IMPORTANT
 * Merge/Redirect/Delete/Transwiki: poor references, not verifiable; (invalid): WP:JNN, ignoring WP:POTENTIAL, WP:JUSTAVOTE

Note that I lumped merge, redirect, delete, and transwiki together because they used similar arguments; this grouping has no bearing on the validity of the arguments presented.

I find that there really is no consensus. If the article should be kept because it is verifiable by reliable sources, where are those sources? If the article should be deleted because reliable sources cannot be found, why are all existent sources invalid? I feel that no side really "wins" this crucial point of the debate.

King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pwn
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable sources that significantly cover the term (I just plucked out Urban Dictionary), consists only of original research and a dicdef. The sources include what appears to be a thesis, a PDF that shows up blank for me, and two slang glossaries. I can't find a single source that discusses the term "pwn" in detail. Last AFD closed as keep on merit of nothing but WP:ILIKEIT votes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - common slang; or transwiki to Wiktionary. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE, buddy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, open to Merge or Move to Wiktionary, but not open to Delete. Nominator argued "not sourced" but in order to argue deletion, you need to demonstrate "not sourceable". ,  show that it's certainly verifiable.  I think a discussion of possibly moving to wiktionary could be fruitful (not sure how I feel about that) but I would not support deleting the material.  Another possibility would be to merge into some page about related slang terms, with the content on "PWN" as a section.  Cazort (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary. Word doesn't haven't sufficient significance for article. There's nothing to say about it. No-one know the origin of the word, so it'll be rife with speculation or original research. People will want to know what it means if they look for it, a job which Wikitionary has been assigned. I can't really see the argument at the moment for a full article here, though I am welcome to here ideas. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 19:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia is full of similar pages detailing gaming slang: Griefer, Frag (video gaming), Team killing, Gibs. "Pwn" and its variants are among the most commonly used Hairhorn (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC).
 * The fact that other stuff exists has no bearing on this article's notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I said. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew this would happen. Have you even read other stuff exists lately? There's a valid way of citing other stuff (sutff that's relevant to your argument), and there's a bad way. Citing other articles is not always irrelevant. Try reading it again. Hairhorn (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this "relevant stuff", then? The only arguments you've put across so far are that this subject is notable because "Wikipedia is full of similar pages detailing gaming slang", most of the examples of which you cited lack the necessary reliable sources anyway; and that the word is "among the most commonly used", which, even if cited, wouldn't be sufficient alone to justify the subject's notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I worry this article is getting grief just because it has a juvenile background. Sources are plentiful, if you care to look for them, even in Google News, although most results are general articles about gaming and internet slang, rather than an entire article about "pwn". Hairhorn (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Whilst I agree that there are other wikipedia pages concerning gaming slang, they treat them in a different way than this article does. Those examples you linked read to me like an encyclopedia entry. This article reads like a dictionary entry, very similar to the one on Wiktionary. As per nom, I don't think this as it currently stands should be a full article as it is doing Wiktionaries job. Taelus (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Internet slang or move to Wiktionary, considering the lack of sources with which notability could be established beyond a dictionary definition. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Wiktionary. There is already a detailed article regarding it there. I'm unsure if its possible to redirect outside of Wikipedia, but if not surely a link to it could be placed on the article page? Taelus (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to leet where it is already covered as it is significant but not notable. And close this AfD, drama, drama, drama. Drawn Some (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as perhaps the key concept, not just word, of its genre., with a specific meaning, which needs explanation and discussion. The article has plenty of room for expansion. DGG (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Expansion from what? Urban Dictionary? Encyclopedia Dramatica? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed; where are the sufficient reliable sources to show its notability? If it were a "key concept", the sources would exist to verify this. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Internet slang or move to Wiktionary per Haipa Doragon. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wikitionary, or to Internet slang, definitely not notable enough to have its own article. No real world information can really be obtained on this. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  00:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if some in the delete camp (and maybe merge as well) are conflating two issues: this subject's potential to be an article, and the fact that "pwn" has a vague or unverifiable history. Having an unverifiable history isn't fatal to an entry about a word: dictionaries all full of words with uncertain or unknown origins. There is lots of room to improve the article, deleting is not the only solution for a bad article. There is room for at least brief discussions of usage, some history, uses in popular culture (it's in at least one South Park episode). Even Google scholar has results for "pwn", although, as usual, always contained inside larger discussions, no articles solely covering "pwn". This would be at home merged into one of the internet slang or leet speak articles, but only if you're truly convinced there's no potential for anything more. Hairhorn (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, we don't base articles on "potential"; if these potential sources you claim to exist exist, where are they? Articles are based on reliable sources, not predictions of the existence of such sources. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Potential is important: see "Arguments to avoid". I haven't cited any sources because (1) it's trivial to verify that pwn is in common use in a particular culture, used in a consistent way, etc etc, so pick your own source, there are lots.... and perhaps more fatally to the article (2) there are none that deal soley with pwn, and dozens that deal with pwn in the context of leet speak. The sources are not great, that's for sure, that may be enough to kill the article. Hairhorn (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are so many sources, why aren't you citing any? WP:GHITS and the like show nothing towards notability. If so many sources exist as you say, show them, or other editors cannot verify your claims. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it's not trivial to verify something that is, thus far, unverified, especially when it needs to be verified for the article to continue existing. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Internet slang and consider merging/redirecting/deleting the other terms that Hairhorn mentioned above. Whatever is in that page that is verifiable could be included in the Internet slang article. MuZemike 05:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, let me change to keep as I think there is enough there to explicitly establish notability. However, if someone wants to merge, discuss on talk, and I probably won't oppose. I stand by the remainder of my above statement. MuZemike 06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Leet. No reliable sources in sufficient non-trivial quantity to attest to anything more than the fact that it exists, doesn't warrant a standalone article. Leet already covers the neologism, add a transwiki link to Wiktionary and we're done.--MLauba (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still undecided. Widely used but rarely subject of serious discussion. Alexius08 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are at least three issues here, and it's important to distinguish between them: notability, verifiability, and the potential to be a good article.


 * The nominator is correct in saying that no source discusses "pwn" in detail. It just isn't out there. So there may not be enough for a good article, and for some of you this may bring up notability issues. (It also means that any detailed pwn entry will probably have OR issues as well).


 * However, "pwn" is easily verified, stop asking me to cite references, you can find them yourself. I've found a Wall Street Journal article, academic papers, slang dictionaries, books for worried parents, and so on. I have to think that people asking over and over for citations are confusing verifiability with the other issues. Because if you can't find "pwn" on the internet, you really haven't tried. Hairhorn (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep claiming to have found sources, so why can't you cite them? If the existence of these sources is as obvious as you say, prove so, otherwise your claims just boil down to "it's obviously notable". Articles are based on verified evidence of notability, not mere assertions like yours. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * - Sigh - you don't really read what I write, do you? Where did I say "it's obviously notable"? I said it's easily verified. Hairhorn (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's so easily verified, as you say, why can't you verify it? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, there are many sources, but none of them discuess pwn in detail. So I'm not gonna play the game of citing souces and then being corned into defending them.... because they aren't that good. If you think "pwn" doesn't exist and isn't used in a consistent way, no amount of research on my end is going to change that. Hairhorn (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What point are you trying to make, then, if said sources you claim the existence of aren't even "that good"? The mere existence of a word isn't enough to justify a Wikipedia article on it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't seem to read what I write. I've been making a point about verifiability - its existence, usage, and so on. I've hardly touched the other issues. I don't own this article. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not getting what point this is. All these claims that "many sources" exist are meaningless unless you can show us examples. This is entirely the point of WP:V, that information should be based on direct citations of sources and not just allusions to their existence. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to Leet Outside of Leet, there is no notability to the term. WP:DICDEF Eauhomme (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * if you havent noticed, it's reached pretty far into standard language by now. DGG (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, where are the reliable sources to show this? Notability can't be based on one's subjective perception that something has entered common usage; the sources must be shown to exist to prove this. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT. No need to merge - the content is already in Wiktionary. There's just not enough reliable secondary sources to include this in an encyclopedia. Orpheus (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * People are going to type this in as a search term; there needs to be a redirect and material somewhere, at the bare minimum, even if it's just a sentence or small paragraph. There are certainly reliable sources documenting enough for a paragraph's worth (or more).  Cazort (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is material somewhere - at pwn. Orpheus (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge as above. I agree this term has no independent notability - just another piece of internet slang. Eusebeus (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Etymology, pronunciation - obviously fails WP:DICDEF. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a pure hunch, but I am inclined to believe that sources for this can be found. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On what basis? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How widespread its use is, and the degree to which plenty of people have focused on describing the subcultures in which the term is used makes me think there are probably sources. I do not have a good guess on how to search for them efficiently, but I strongly suspect that they exist, and per WP:N, this suggests to me that deletion is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly going to have to be verified if it's to stand any chance of passing the notability guideline. It's hardly going to stand on the weakly-verified claims of "widespread use" it has at the moment. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this seems to me exceedingly likely to be possible. I mean, do you really doubt the term's widespread use? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but without reliable sources I very much doubt its notability—widespread use doesn't necessarily equate to something being notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However, as I pointed out, the subculture it is in wide use within has been the subject of extensive study and commentary, making me doubtful that a particularly iconic piece of slang from the subculture is going to be ignored by the sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment People keep mentioning Widespread use, but really, outside of internet gamers, does anybody use this term much? I think it has frequent use by a small segment of the population and will soon go the way of valspeak. Eauhomme (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A small but oft-commented on segment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more sources now. The discussion of the term is brief in these sources, but non-trivial, and it allowed some verifying of some of the content as well as adding a little more. Per the general notability guideline I would recommend keep. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd still go for a merge; it's still little more than a stub. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the previous AfD (not sure why I didn't do that sooner), and found that other sources were brought up there, including this article in The Detroit News which would provide some more useful content for the article here. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep! - I wanted to know what it was; I turned to trusty Wikipedia; there it was.71.101.53.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC).
 * That's little more than an WP:ILIKEIT !vote; how is that at all relevant to the article's notability? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe it doesn't count; I'm not a Wikipedia member and don't entirely know the rules. But it was a significant gap in my knowledge and my ability to understand things, which Wikipedia filled in for me, which is as I understand it the purpose and function of an encyclopedia.  And it's not just online culture -- I've heard people pronounce it too, so I had an "aahhh" moment.  I mean, I don't know what the checklist is to qualify an article, but from my point of view Wikipedia would be better if this article were brought up to snuff and worse if it were snuffed.(71.101.53.18 (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Everyone's input counts, the WP:ILIKEIT page just says that unreasoned arguments have little weight. You did have some input, so do not worry about the rules and whether you "count", the closing sysop can weigh up everything to find concensus. Don't worry about being bold in contributing! Taelus (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  (see below). As a mere slang neologism, it fails WP:N and WP:V and unquestionably falls under WP:NOTDIC and WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it has to be considered that users will type this into the search box. It is important for users to see something useful and relevant when they do this.  Whether it's a merge or a pointer to dictionary, or a small dedicated article (which is what I'd prefer), that's debatable.  But just outright deleting it would create a void for an important subject.  As I have demonstrated above, this the use of this word is verifiable in reliable sources.  That means it belongs somewhere on wikipedia...thus we should be arguing whether or not to merge.  This deletion discussion, in my opinion, is misguided, and the recommendations to delete should be interpreted as recommendations to merge.  I would rather see this discussion closed as a keep, and then we can discuss whether or not to merge later.  Cazort (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't see anything in your comment which couldn't be covered, properly, under a redirect to leet, which provides basic coverage of the term AND points to wiktionary for further explanations. To suggest that delete votes are in reality meant to be merge votes is a novel approach, however. Not sure it will fly though. MLauba (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a merge/redirect to leet would be perfectly reasonable, even though I would (weakly) prefer keeping this its own article. But I think an AfD is not a place for a merge discussion...it's a place to discuss whether the material should be outright deleted and I think that is too hard to argue for this term.  Cazort (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While there is an article on Valspeak, there is no article on Grody to the Max, Gag Me With a Spoon, or Gnarly. Likewise, I can see the need for an article on Leet, but not Pwn. Eauhomme (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep. Specific slang words have generally no place in Wikipedia, due to their constantly evolving nature, it's a WP:V nightmare and drawing fire from  WP:NOTDIC and WP:NEO.  The views of Hairhorn, Cazort and DGG reluctantly made me change my mind WP:IAR. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What the three sources provide is extremely limited and conflicting definitions. TIME's peculiarly-looking (is it someone's blog?) Dashboard page says that it means "to destroy (own) a foe", CNet's photo commentary refers to it as "a hacker slang for "own," meaning getting complete control of someone else's system", and the PCMag definition remarks that in gaming, it means "to trounce an opponent. To be "pwned" is to be defeated unmercifully." I just don't see any encyclopedic notability here. Does "definately" deserve its Wikipedia page as well? Again, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary and I see nothing in the mentioned comments that could convince me in keeping the article in question. If it's only a matter of possible user searches, I think it will be more sensible to just redirect it to an appropriate slang page (e.g. Internet Slang) and use the already existing  to guide the searcher to the commonly accepted definition.  — Rankiri (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's more than just those three sources, however. I mentioned this one above, which had been brought up in the previous AfD, and added some others to the article. There are multiple non-trivial sources already, and room for expansion based on others. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The source you mention itself contains the following quote: "This word is just an overly used Internet typo. It has been overused to the point that people who play online games are using it in everyday speech." In which way is it definitive, nontrivial, or even relevant? And what possible room for expansion are we talking about? If it's a simple WP:NOTDIC slang term that doesn't represent any distinctive entities or unique concepts, the only expansion I can imagine is in an expansive list of synonyms and links to slang-related websites. — Rankiri (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of finding slightly more comprehensive sources, I'm changing my original position to redirect/merge to Leet. I still strongly disagree with the idea that the term merits its own article. As mentioned earlier, it has insufficient individual notability and little potential for any future expansion.
 * http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118679550023894850.html
 * http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2008/01/11/news/local/doc47871f54ecfe6705836093.txt
 * http://forthright.livejournal.com/212704.html — Rankiri (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Leet and merge useful content there. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Leet as above. While some sourcing exists, it would seem to support it better as part of l33t than as an independent term.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The entries of DHowell and cipher_nemo in the first deletion discussion show the proof of concept is valid for not just as a definition, but how it is related to its uses beyond its definition. I suggest a WP:CLEAN tag to make the article more encyclopedic.--Red3001 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Other Internet slang/1337 words have their own page and have survived deletion based on definition only articles. O_RLY? (2nd nomination) and Internets_(2nd_nomination) deletion discussions should be used as reference before making a decision.--Red3001 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2009 (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.