Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omgbbq
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Omgbbq
While a google search shows that this term does exist within certain internet forums and such, this violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, as there don't seem to be any reliable sources on this. If a reliable source can be found which merely defines the term, then we still couldn't keep this as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the definition could go to Wiktionary Xyzzyplugh 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable internet slang. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- "notable" doesn't address the fact that it violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Are you arguing that it doesn't violate these, or that these policies be abandoned in favor of notability? --Xyzzyplugh 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it violates WP:NOR, and I have my suspicions that we could find some verifiable sources with a little effort, given its widespread use. I don't think deletion is the answer here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- From WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". --Xyzzyplugh 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, WP:V's number one flaw. If i'm able to do so before this concludes, I surely will. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- (I'm getting a bit off topic here, but it's something I'm interested in) How would wikipedia function properly if WP:V didn't work like this? If people had to prove that something was not verifiable in order to remove it, it seems to me this would be a disaster. I could write an article about Purple Candy Striped Unicorns from the planet Neptune, and claim my source was Ye Olde Booke of Little Known Animals, out of print since 1762, my copy of which was sadly destroyed years ago in a fire. And then say, "Try to PROVE the book and the unicorns don't exist!", which of course no one can do, as proving things don't exist tends to be impossible. While my example is silly, people believe in vast numbers of unproven and unprovable things, which we are fortunately able to keep out of wikipedia due to the current state of WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- It would work better than you think it would. In cases like this, we obviously know the term exists, and that there's some information, we're merely hamstrung by the somewhat archaic trappings of WP:V. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- (I'm getting a bit off topic here, but it's something I'm interested in) How would wikipedia function properly if WP:V didn't work like this? If people had to prove that something was not verifiable in order to remove it, it seems to me this would be a disaster. I could write an article about Purple Candy Striped Unicorns from the planet Neptune, and claim my source was Ye Olde Booke of Little Known Animals, out of print since 1762, my copy of which was sadly destroyed years ago in a fire. And then say, "Try to PROVE the book and the unicorns don't exist!", which of course no one can do, as proving things don't exist tends to be impossible. While my example is silly, people believe in vast numbers of unproven and unprovable things, which we are fortunately able to keep out of wikipedia due to the current state of WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, WP:V's number one flaw. If i'm able to do so before this concludes, I surely will. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- From WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". --Xyzzyplugh 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it violates WP:NOR, and I have my suspicions that we could find some verifiable sources with a little effort, given its widespread use. I don't think deletion is the answer here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- "notable" doesn't address the fact that it violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Are you arguing that it doesn't violate these, or that these policies be abandoned in favor of notability? --Xyzzyplugh 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- merge into List_of_Internet_slang_phrases#O or transwiki to wiktionary. Either way it doesn't need an article in wikipedia. ju66l3r 16:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kill. Dicdef. --Angry Lawyer 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Neologism StuffOfInterest 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not nearly popular enough to deserve a WP entry, considering stuff like "rofl" or LMAO don't even have their own entry (not that they should). GrahameS 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- They redirect to LOL (Internet slang). Please look to see where OMGWTFBBQ redirects to. Uncle G 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- OMGBBQ Delete! Notable, I guess, but not as notable as say, LOL. Violates WP:NOR. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Can you imagine a non-trivial, reliable source on this? Maybe Dateline could do a special on it or something, I would watch that. Recury 19:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WTFOMGBBQ WilyD 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Koffieyahoo 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:WINAD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:V and WP:NOR RN 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge to List of internet slang per Uncle G. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Internet slang (See OMGWTFBBQ). No mergable information; reads like Urban Dictionary. -- jeffthejiff 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WilyD, WP:V and WP:NOR. I know the term exists (heck, I've used it), but without sourcing, it doesn't belong here. I will reconsider my opinion if someone can find a reliable source for this.--Isotope23 14:12, 16 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.
