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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. First off, there was very little consensus to 'keep' this article in its current form. It is not suitable for a merge into Internet slang, due to the nature of that article. As pointed out below the article is full of original research, and isn't verifiable. One of the sources is a Wikipedia mirror of the article(!) and the others not reliable. Therefore the result of the debate is delete rather than merge. Then comes the question as to where to redirect this to (I should note here that decisions to redirect do not need afd to decide, and therefore if there is consensus to change the redirect destination, that can be done using the article's talk page). I'm redirecting to God (expression) because there is more opportunity to add information to that article, if suitable sources can ever be found. Petros471 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZOMG

ZOMG was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-20. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZOMG.

ZOMG! Delete. Not encyclopedic. Hardee67 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article is original research, combined with some parts taken from utterly unreliable sources (urban dictionary, usenet messages). Once the content for which we have no reliable sources is taken out, there will be nothing left. Also, this slang term already exists at List of Internet slang phrases, so no need to merge it anywhere. The previous AfD debate had Keep votes where people were saying they didn't want to lose the valuable content. Since the valuable content entirely violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, the previous AfD debate results are crap. Find some reliable sources, or kill this article. --Xyzzyplugh 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Surely you do not hope for professors to spend their time researching on Leet? Leet is a form of online language and has no absolute definition and no way to verify. IMHO though urban dictionary and usenet messages may not be able to provide accurate and neutral sources for other things, they're just the right thing for Leet. By the way, there's not really much to verify. I admit there's some original research, but if you remove them there's still plenty of things that can be kept. Aranherunar 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Already covered with the rest of its kin over at leet. Peyna 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Leet does not give a detailed explanation and does not even have a sub-section devoted to it. It merely mentions it when it is describing over-exclamation, which is not exactly the same as "ZOMG". A merge would be better. Aranherunar 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons above --Xnobjafnyy 02:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep Common enough Internet slang, if not keep then merge there. LinaMishima 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to God (expression) Dinosaur puppy 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it is interesting, and some of it's sourced (Urban Dictionary is OK, considering how tough internet memes are for sources; if the rest can't be sourced, it can be merged or redirected to God (expression) harmlessly. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Urban Dictionary is NOT ok, urban dictionary is just random anonymous people typing in whatever they feel like. Read WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Urban dictionary falls in the same category as the following, from WP:RS, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking". --Xyzzyplugh 08:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Leet is random anonymous people typing in whatever they feel like, too. Leet depends on how you understand them and has no definition - providing what others think is just the right thing.Aranherunar 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xyzzyplugh. Erechtheus 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Internet slang. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Xyzzplugh Dlyons493 Talk 10:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It should onle be at the list of internet slang, it does not deserve its own article Konman72 10:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • comment then merge not delete, surely? LinaMishima 12:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete then redirect to God (expression) - Iolakana|T 11:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Laziness to type words out should not be the basis for coining new words. --Xrblsnggt 12:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment actually, in languages it often is. LinaMishima 12:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment try learning Finnish sometime. Anyhow, NPOV - it's happened, our opinions are irrelevant. --Kizor 14:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, anyway it was interesting. :) NCurse work 14:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • could be true but could equally be a hoax. Doesn't matter, I thik it still fails WP:NEO neo-acro-logism ;-) Strong delete Ohconfucius 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I assure you it's true :) Aranherunar 06:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into internet slang. This really does not need its own article. Resolute 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xyzzyplugh - David Oberst 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to God (expression) per Kilo-Lima hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to OMG or Internet slang. Not nearly as famous or notable as OMG. We don't need to cover every single Internet slang expression. JIP | Talk 18:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with God (expression), which is the article on OMG. — Reinyday, 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unfortunately delete. rootology (T) 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable internet slang. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FOAD, YHBT and delete as WP:NOT any sort of dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to God (expression) - I like the content, but it needs sources, and really isn't distinct enough from OMG to warrant a separate article. Ziggurat 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into something similar, but don't delete. E.g. what about Omgbbq? Nullterminator 10:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Ah, good find, I'll Prod that one immediately. --Xyzzyplugh 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Its not really article... Or MERGE into/make a page for l33t speak :D Reedy Boy 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or Merge I've seen this article many times on google... and its never had any decent sources. It never mentions the "zOMG" variety either which is the most common one I've seen... RN 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with God (expression). --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Internet slang. Not notable - hardly ever used in comparison to OMG. The brief mention in the Internet slang article ("sometimes "ZOMG!") is enough. -- jeffthejiff 11:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Internet slang, existing mention "sometimes "ZOMG!" is enough LinaMishima 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Leet. ZOMG is the leetified version of OMG. Leet lacks a detailed explanation of it anyways. Aranherunar 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Internet slang per the above. Sandstein 20:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Internet slang. 1ne 05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. General info about a common internet meme, the kind of article that makes wikipedia such a wonderful place. Themindset 22:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - too unreliable to merge. Only properly sourced material should be merged into existing articles. BlueValour 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, then redirect per Kilo-Lima. ~ c. tales //dirty little secrets// 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - interesting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.213.43 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep for reasons already stated.--GeneralDuke 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep common internet slang. 130.166.81.166 01:16, 21 August 2006 (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.