Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QLTM


 * 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 Redirect with merge done by Blofeld of SPECTRE. Non-admin closure.SkierRMH 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

QLTM

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The creator offers no evidence that this phrase is notable; in fact, it appears not to be widely used. Prod removed by creator without comment or changes to article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect If it can be referenced redirect to LOL and have it at the bottom. If it can't delete  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Why should all internet slang not have their place on Wikipedia?  What is the justification for this not to show on Wikipedia as part of the internet vernacular and therefore a valid, although not popularly used I understand, but no less valid than any other part of the references made on Wikipedia.  I have added it to the bottom of LOL, RFOL, and LMAO, as well as added this to the internet slag phrases listing.
 * I am not going to fight for this to be kept. I am really asking this as a larger question for the basis of information that deemed as "not notable."  This is only one very, very small example of the type of information that might be lost or over looked.  Wikipedia can contain so much information as a reference why is it not more freely open to new information and ideas?  I believe all information should be vetted and accurate, and if the information can't be verified then it should be deleted.  If this article could not be verified or substantiated, it should be deleted.  But the policy on notability seems to be too broad or subjective to be used in most cases when articles are nominated for deletion. The Wikipedia "police" seem to be overly judgmental and narrow as to what this reference should or should not contain. TETFSU 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply As I replied to your similar message on the article talk page, the standard we're measuring by is the notability criteria. If you can show how this subject meets that standard, this is the place to explain it.  But if you want to discuss whether or not the notability criteria are the best way to choose what articles we need, you should take that discussion to the talk page there, rather than having it over just one article.  After all, you're asking for a pretty radical change in the way Wikipedia runs, and that change will affect all of the encyclopedia, not just this one article.  And if we only kept verified articles, this one still wouldn't qualify, since your only cited source is another user-edited source, not a reliable one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 24 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.