Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TL;DR


 * 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.

TL;DR: keep.

Numerically, the Keep's have it, but not with a lot of sound policy-backed argument to support them. The delete (and redirect to wictionary) camp are arguing that this is a dictdef, and the keepers, for the most part, don't do a terribly good job of refuting that. Thus, I was initially leaning towards closing this as delete, knowing full-well it would be DRV bait. The one argument that swayed me was, who initially wanted to delete, but then changed to saying that this was an essential piece of wiki-jargon, and should be kept under WP:IAR. I think that's what most of the other keepers were saying too, even if they didn't find the right policy to cite, so in the end, I let the weight of numbers win the day. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

TL&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There doesn't seem to be any substantial general coverage of the term, outside of dictionary definitions of it. Bosstopher (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment We have this, though I would not confidently call it notable without any more sources.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 23:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment. Is there really much to be said about this?  It's a popular enough phrase on the Internet, but so are plenty others.  I dutifully did a Google News search, but it's swamped in hits from "hip" writers using the phrase itself.  I would lean toward a soft redirect to Wiktionary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Additional sources found in searches, including: and . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think those sources are as helpful as you think they are. If anything they support making this an article about the app, as far as I can tell. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 04:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- Urban Dictionary is thattaway... -> ////////// Carrite (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDICT. --Michig (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wikitionary's wikt:Appendix:Internet slang. It's a searchable term but all we can really do is define it, so the wikt version should work. --M ASEM (t) 03:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is an entry on Wiktionary, so it's not some made up neologism. IEdior (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Besides the definition, the other things in the article are semi-related, if anything. Tavix | Talk  13:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per, as that rationale makes more sense than my previous one. Tavix | Talk  23:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Appears to be sources out there to support article expansion, e.g. the Huffington Post and Forbes. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – It has over 300 "What links here", including 20 on WP:Administrators Noticeboard. Essential WP jargon, and we need somewhere to link to, for editors who don't know it. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We already have WP:TLDR for that purpose. Bosstopher (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect - Agree with Margin1522, but a redirect to TL;DR should be more than fine. I doubt any of those usages are using the article for anything other than its definition. &#8213;  Padenton  &#124;&#9742; 00:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * keep per Margin1522 and oppose redirecting to an unsourced "external page" (WIKT). Christian75 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keepish. Something needs to be at this title.  I wouldn't be horribly opposed to a soft redirect to Wiktionary, but even if it were on the wrong side of borderline notability (which I do think it passes our notability requirements), it is used all over creation on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. A soft redirect to Wiktionary would be fine. Keeping a dictionary definition here on the basis that the term exists and is used in a lot of places (which is about all the keep arguments amount to) don't appear to have any basis in policy (while Wikipedia is not a dictionary on the other hand is a policy). --Michig (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – The policy for keep is Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which notes the difference between a dictionary definition and a word or phrase that may itself be an encyclopedic subject. The article does have four references, one of which I just improved by linking to a [history of the meme] on the Internet. Also the article already has a soft redirect to Wiktionary. What the delete !votes are proposing is that we keep that and delete everything else. Why? I think that if we are going to delete the other stuff, someone should have to explain why it isn't good enough for Wikipedia. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really can't see http://knowyourmeme.com/ being accepted as a reliable source. The other sources give us nothing more than a definition. If the article cannot be expanded beyond the content one might expect to find in a dictionary, then according to our policy the appropriate place to have this is in our dictionary project, i.e. Wiktionary. --Michig (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * According to their About page, Know Your Meme has an editorial staff that conducts research to check each entry, which is what we normally want from an RS. It is part of the Web Archiving Program at the Library of Congress and their research has appeared in the NYT, WSJ, NPR, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, etc. If it's good enough for them it should be good enough for Wikipedia. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like a solid site.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. to wikiionary as said above.  Bobherry Userspace   Talk to me!   Stuff I have done  16:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Liked to over 300 pages here and then we have mentions on Huffington Post & The New York Times - Not really seeing the benefit to deletion. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but of the 300 pages that link here 0 are in articlespace, and wikipedia already has an essay WP:TL;DR for people to link to in those circumstances. This is also a problem that would be solved by soft redirecitng to wikitionary.Bosstopher (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The linking does need fixing and can be fixed, No need to shove it elsewhere when it serves its purpose here. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The term is not only covered in dictionaries, it is also covered in enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG (see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). However, the article should be expanded to include some more information that would not be appropriate to be put in a dictionary.Esquivalience t 23:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - In light of the number of in-links and the argument that this is "an essential piece of wiki-jargon," I'm striking my Delete opinion and tilting the other way. IAR exception. Carrite (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a well-known and often used phrase in Internet culture. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even if we decide it's a notable neologism, that doesn't mean it should have its own article. To anyone !voting keep, what would a Featured Article version of this topic look like? I'm not seeing any sources that indicate this article could have more than a definition, use in popular culture, and content which duplicates the concept "summary". That's not enough for a stand-alone article. I wouldn't be opposed to a Merge to an appropriate topic or even a soft redirect as proposed above. Its use, its use on Wikipedia, and the number of incoming links have nothing to do with whether it should have an article on an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, per nom, although I find it a shame that we don't have a "List of internet slang" article that this could be merged to. There is definitely a place for such discourse on Wikipedia, but TL;DR doesn't deserve its own article per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and (as someone above mentioned) this would never get past the stub phase.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and soft redirect. At present, not seeing how this can be destubbed, but perhaps this will change. Ping me if this is expanded or if any source is found that covers the topic in depth (as in, does more than defines it in a sentence or two). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect: I don't care if it has 10 million cites, it's still a freaking dicdef.  Nha Trang  Allons! 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. And expand. Given the usage on internet, it won't remain just a dictdef stub if given some editing hours. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as TL;DR is a notable phrase, but it does need severe improvements. This is Mkbw50 signing out! 13:33, 9 April 2015 (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.