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 keep. Ifnord 01:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet slang[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary for neologisms and ASCII art. delete Tokek 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I disagree somewhat. Doesn't really qualify as a dicdef page. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 10:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very, very, very weak keep. I can see the possible potential for a list of common examples as a subset of the Internet slang article, but at the moment, this is not it. In my opinion, this article needs a serious, chainsaw-massacre cull, some kind of sourcing, and a possible merge back into the "Internet slang" article, or some continual, heavy policing to prevent this from blowing back out into the massive, unsourced repository for any tripped-out acronym or "Look what I just created!" Ascii art this currently is. -- Saberwyn 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not dicdef, quite useful. --Terence Ong 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If these dictionary definitions don't deserve a mention in individual articles in the first place, why should they suddenly deserve a mention in Wikipedia once they're clumped up together into this article? By combining the dictionary definitions into a single page, it just means that the user has to go through the trouble of scrolling to the term he/she is looking for, as opposed to having it show up in an article by itself. It also appears to have become a popular article for miscellaneous nonsense and vandalism. See in WP:NOT where it says: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, 1. Dictionary definitions. 2. Lists of such definitions. --Tokek 10:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: you make a reasonable point, Tokek, but I took that to mean lists linking to dicdef pages. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 11:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, like it or not, this article is both useful and used. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful list, and a as a merge target, this is a very useful vacuum cleaner which can sweep up articles people write on individual internet slang terms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Adrian Lamo and Terence Ong. youngamerican (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• --You could add this to the netiquitte page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.30.254 (talk • contribs)
• Very obvious delete per WP:NOT, but this is purely academic. The only reason this exists at all is so that silly little kids who forget how to get to urban dictionary have a place to put their unverifiable cruft. On a pure cost-benefit analysis, this article does not benefit the project. There's little or no encyclopedic value, and keeping it in any kind of reasonable shape is more effort than people have been willing to put in. Those that want to cut it down and merge it to Internet slang have a reasonable idea, but they've forgotten to be practical. The reason it exists is that people wanted Internet slang to be in some kind of reasonable shape so they moved all the crap to another article. Friday (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh really?: So it's for kids you say? Well then, my research work on how to help adults to navigate throught the majority of Internet sites, containing portions of this this "not-encyclopedically valuable" material, shouldn't have been such a success. The article doesn't offend anyone and it's valuable alright. It has information, that can be utilised very well by users, who have little or no expirience in Internet communication. 16:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete it; a well-known cultural phenomenon and the list could be useful. --Shadow Puppet 15:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Useful. Few of the slang terms on the list are noteworthy enough to be included singularly in an article, but grouped together and organized, they provide some insight into both the viral memetic qualities they have in spreading on the internet and the relation they have to one another. The list is more than the sum of its parts. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary or lists of such definitions - this policy could use some further explication, but this case seems straightforward - what could an encyclopedia offer in such a list that a dictionary cannot? Individual entries could be transwikid to Wiktionary if notable and verifiable. Might be useful if WP searches on dicdefs or lists thereof could offer a redirect to WT. Schizombie 19:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have an article internet slang, and we have this urban dictionary style unmaintainable article. There is no such thing as "internet slang" - there are internet slangs. I would support the creation of articles on chat room slang, instant messenger slang, Something Awful forum slang, Wikipedia jargon.. Those articles would at least be maintainable and verifiable. The internet is far too big and multilingual a place to have one set of slang. If the jargon used is important to understanding an online space add it to the article on that space. Secretlondon 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such thing as internet slang? The plural of 'slang' is still 'slang'. Or it could be 'slang terms'. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An obviously great list that can only improve over time. I also have to laugh when people start talking about "cost benefit analysis" for judging article worth as part of a volunteer project. -- JJay 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Those who want Wikipedia to be a dictionary and/or slang guide might want to raise the issue over at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Currently, consensus seems fairly clear on Wikipedia not being a dictionary or slang guide, so finding another place for this seems reasonable. Everything2 allows stuff that's "obviously great" without regard to encyclopedic standards. Friday (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised you are encouraging all the keep "voters" here and the contributers to this article to leave wikipedia. I guess we all fail your personal cost benefit analysis and need to be cut or redirected to another site that will accept "silly little kids" like us. How insulting. -- JJay 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? I'm not saying any editors should go away, I just think the article should go away. Friday (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion is an excellent suggestion; discuss the broader issue here.--ragesoss 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need. The policy already endorses this list: "Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields." Honbicot 16:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is where internet slang terms which dont yet deserve there own article are directed to. Also I have actually used this list before to look up names of internet acronyms -- Astrokey44|talk 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite WP:NOT, this list is both useful and used. I'm not usually one to say this, but sometimes WP:IAR is good, and in those cases we should emphasize practice over policy. We have a lot of lists that are pretty useless that haven't had their legitimacy ever called into question. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful reference. No cogent reason given for deleting this. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Better to have a one-stop shop for these, and link into the dicdef for individual terms, than not to have it. icebrrrg 10:14, 22 February 2006 (EDT)
• Keep - usefull collection of info
• Keep Useful list. The policy referred to explicitly approves of this sort of thing: "Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields." Honbicot 16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some of us don't see that slang words made up last week on some forum somewhere are for a "specialized field". But, it's all academic, there's no way this "article" is going to go away. Wikipedia's natural bias toward all things net-related ensures that. Friday (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The List of Latin phrases, List of French phrases, List of German words and phrases would also be under WP:NOT, but each serves as a useful list not under controversy because of usage. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most of the abbreviations are either outright invention, not externally verifiable or not notable enough to deserve a place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an internet slang dictionary. Lavareef 20:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent we have some many jargon & slang lists and we keep them all. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep XQ fan 08:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ramymamlouk 09:10, 23 February (GMT)

• Keep - Yes, WP:NOT (section 1.2.3) implies some restrictions ("Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used"). However, this article is not meant to define or teach internet slang. It's still useful. It might be compared to List of elements by symbol - also a dictionary which translates a specialized vocabulary into normal language, also without saying how the stuff should be used. Still, the article List of Internet Slang needs to be beefed up; currently it's of rather low quality. Heck, it's even missing a link to Internet Slang! --Klaws 10:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and cleanup) - I'm ignoring WP:NOT on purpose here. I agree with above commenters that while dicdefs are generally undesirable, a specialized glossary (which this is) is not necessarily so. If we keep it pared down to something reasonable, it will remain useful and encyclopedic. Directing users to Urban Dictionary (or even Wiktionary) is overkill for something like this. Powers 19:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Subtle glossaries seem to be formualted all over wikipedia, and I believe that if there is justification for something such as the list of ethnic slurs, there very well should be justification for this such article. Salluste 22:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having a list of Internet slang and its meanings will greatly help those who are unaware of what such terms mean. Granted, there is urbandictionary.com , but having wikipedia have an article on it would help many immensely. Vagrant 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is not meant to be a complete reference, but just a sample of what you can find and read online. This is just a sample. If anything, it should be expanded by adding links to other sites which deal with slang. Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 07:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep really useful reference Deleteme42 17:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Why would you want to remove this? It is very useful. As somone said before there are lists of things all over Wikipedia. 68.127.150.222 13:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep — I don't watch AfD. I just stumbled on this page doing a lookup (for FTW). My rule is, if I go looking for something, and see it's got a VfD, then I vote strong keep, because the articles' existence has already assisted me as a reader of the encyclopedia. --TreyHarris 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Kitsune Sniper / David Silva --Iffy★Chat -- 11:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep --Kompik 15:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable, unencyclopedic and indiscriminate. -- Krash (Talk) 17:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — The majority of these words are hardly in use at all, it is not helpful in any way. -- spring heel

• Keep. --Seth Goldin 23:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful, and many articles link here where the individual slang has been redirected. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 23:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I used it a couple of times to find out what something meant, parhaps it doesn't belong in wikipedia, but I'm too lazy to do a google search for a list complete like this one. Dandin1 00:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.