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 keep and move to List of emoticons.

Various considerable aspects both in favour of deletion and keep have been mentioned in this debate.

Regarding the points having been mentioned in favour of deletion, the following ones seem to be noteworthy: Firstly, it has been explained that the article would not meet our standards for verifiability and for notability. Also, quite a few participants have expressed concerns regarding the page title: According to them, the word “common” constitutes POV. The last point to mention is that some users deem the article unsourced and thus want it to be deleted.

On the other hand, numerous arguments in favour of keep have been explained. Those arguments are partly even addressing the points that have been named by the users who said the article should be deleted: There would be more than enough potential reliable sources (quite a few have even been named in this debate as examples); the sourcing problem could be addressed by adding them to the article. Regarding the notability concerns the vast majority of the participants agree that the subject of the article is a notable expression and is notable enough for inclusion. Thus, the subject of this article would constitute a reasonable subject for a list. Finally, the POV problem can be solved quite easily; simply by moving the article to List of emoticons, as explained below by some users.

Taking all these points into account, I think it is safe to say that there's a clear consensus for keeping the article. — Aitias // discussion 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of common emoticons[edit]

List of common emoticons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page does not meet our criteria for inclusion. It belongs on Wikisource or some other project, but it is entirely unreferenced and unsuited for an encyclopedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't matter if an article is interesting, useful, or ranks highly on Google (like all Wikipedia pages). All of those emoticons need to be verified with sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How it even possible to have sources for emoticons? They are simply something that someone made up and have pervaded our culture. There is no original source. Yet this page is still highly useful as it teaches the uninformed about internet culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.56.180 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So explodicle, do you really think people made these up? lol. Or are you just trying to fit in the whole "I'm an awesome and proper sysop" act? 72.221.76.103 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't it be both? :-P --Explodicle (T/C) 15:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "All of those emoticons need to be verified with sources." This is the wrong forum to force editors to improve this page. WP:INTROTODELETE, WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." Remember, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD): "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Editors can see this article as useful, and ignore WP:AADD. Ikip (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right to say that essays are in no way binding, WP:AADD just prevents having to repeat yourself. Also, I agree that deletion is a last resort, and that we should not delete this article. However, WP:V and WP:RS are not essays; they describe a strong consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD): "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Editors are welcome to see this article as useful, and ignore the "subjective" WP:AADD. Ikip (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using WP:AADD as if citing policy, I'm using it to elaborate my own point. An encyclopedia article is only as good as its sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD): "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Editors can see this article as useful, and ignore WP:AADD. Usefulness can be a factor in deletion discussions. Just because another editor quotes an acronym, does not make it iron clad law. Ikip (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it doesn't. However, one could claim that any article up for deletion is "useful". We need to make our decision based on facts, not opinions. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, unfortunatly, the policy verifiability, in the very first sentence, contradicts your statement. WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" The five pillars of wikipedia, the most important rules, state: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references." It is a question of editing, editors can find references, and add those references. Have editors who support delete looked for references themselves, if not, how do you know that none exist? Ikip (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness is the paramount criteria in assessing what makes the encyclopedia better. This is fundamental and all the other guidelines are built on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is and is not "useful" is completely a matter of opinion - one could also argue to keep the list because it is "super awesome". How about some proof? --Explodicle (T/C) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, i keep having to clarify this essay, I agree with Child. What is and is not notable is also completely a matter of opinion, yet it is the reason a majority of articles get deleted. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD): "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Editors can see this article as useful, and ignore WP:AADD. Usefulness can be a factor in deletion discussions. Just because another editor quotes an important sounding acronym, does not make it iron clad law, heed at your own discretion. Ikip (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Wikipedia, what is and is not notable is not a matter of opinion; you can find the definition at Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline (not an essay) backed by an editorial consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is going to do that? When? --Explodicle (T/C) 16:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Instead of simply throwing out "there are sources somewhere", why not make your speculation concrete? Please provide the references here, or add them yourself. Still, I think they are definitions which should cross-wiki link to Wiktionary. Scapler (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this AfD, like most AfD's is summed up in a saying by User:MichaelQSchmidt "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet." A lot of editors complaining that someone else should fix the article. Ikip (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree whole heartedly. The article should be kept but renamed. Take out the "common".--Companioncube31 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the emoticon article passes WP:V, WP:NOTE, etc, a "list of" article does not need to pass all those requirements for each entry. The Emoticon#Examples already has external links to lists of emoticons supported by major IM providers, those seem like reasonable sources to me.
When this article was deleted w/o any AfD or discussion, I debated pulling it back just so that an AfD could be done. I decided not to because I didn't think it would be worth my time. For a couple of years now, I've been trying to babysit the emoticon article against the constant flood of vandalism and people inserting their favorite emoticon or whatever they made up in school today. One of the ways I've been cutting back the bloat there is to tell people to put stuff into the "list of" article, but my interest in that article didn't even extend to having it on my watch list. I see that Aaron Brenneman has currently been heavily editing it, convert this "list of" into move of an article than a list. Unless someone wants to put a lot of time babysiting this article, I predict it will return to a very long list of very marginal emoticons, random comments and content that duplicates the emoticon article. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promoted leaf-pile guards...appeared, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side
In the almost two years this article has existed, and the time of this debate, we have ended up with an article with zero references. Where (all those saying references can be found) is there a single reliable reference saying there is such a thing as a recognized common emoticon to have a list of ? Peripitus (Talk) 09:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was willing to do what none of the delete editors have been, this article is now referenced. "Where is the single reference backing up the existance (sic) of the topic" Take one second and scroll up to DHowell's response. I would like to answer your question too, check the page's references, it is now referenced. I would like to introduce the template ((findsources3)), in the hope that those editors so eager to delete other editors contributions can now contribute to this and other pages. Ikip (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't really consider this article 100% dictionary definition - it explains the context behind the emoticons in depth. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:22, 3 February 2009 (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.
More