Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZOMG

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 (no consensus). The article here is a fairly long one, and I cannot see any good way of merging this without removing about 90% of the article. The closure here does not mean that the article cannot be merged, but only that I will not do so. Regarding the possible merge targets, I think that Internet slang is a poor merge target since that article is about internet slang in general, not about specific terms. List of internet slang is perhaps better but that article only has short descriptions. Leet is also a reasonable merge target, but would again require serious trimming. I will leave that discussion to the talkpages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZOMG

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Yes it could be included in other articles like Internet Slang List_of_Internet_slang but to have its own page is excessive. DennyCrane Talk 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• ZOMG! Delete! slang dictdef, and of dubious provenance at that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into internet slang, since very few slang words have their own article. And the only ones that do are extremely notable, like LOL. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Keep/merge because this article has a good amount of background information, rather than just a definition. It is also among the more-notable slang terms. A merge is sufficient, provided the merge includes the background info, not just a dicdef (cause really, that info is what warrants any inclusion at all). -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing bolding to emphasize I'd prefer a keep, but would settle for merging. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete seems notable, but sounds like WP:OR through and through. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Have to agree with you there, signifigant amout of OR.--DennyCrane Talk 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep contains a lot information, no need to merge. Not a dictdef by any stretch of imagination.  Grue  18:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leet.--Andeh 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • While there is a brief mention of it there, I would be confused if that redirect happened to me as a regular user. If this does come out as a merge/redirect, I think internet slang is a better target. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it does have good information, and the term is very popular. Danny Lilithborne 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to internet slang, taking care to include background info, per Goldom. Jumbo Snails 05:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist raises a good point, changing my vote to Keep. Failing that, merge to List of Internet slang rather than simply Internet Slang, per DennyCrane. Jumbo Snails 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge As above Artw 05:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article contains substantial information about the term in question far exceeding the scope of a dictionary definition and is of much greater length than would be appropriate for inclusion in a general article on slang. I initially found the article trying to figure out if there was any specific meaning to the word. Had it merely redirected an article on slang in general, I would have found it utterly useless, as I already knew that it was internet slang at that point. If we want to break out the ever-popular Google-search-as-metric-of-importance, ZOMG yields over 1.8 million hits. -- Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist 17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I second this rationale - it may not be as objective as the one I said above, but to be honest, this is my case as well. Back when everyone was saying this, I had no clue what it meant or where it came from, and you can just imagine trying to find that info on google or someplace. (This is not to say it is OR to be on wiki, it does appear verifiable). This was where I finally found out its history. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I admit a merge with Internet Slang woudl not be usefull, a merge with List_of_Internet_slang would. Yes it is a large and informative article, but it is majoritively Original Research, and if a definition was placed on List_of_Internet_slang (which there is none at the moment), I think it would suffice to be informative, without breaking policy.--DennyCrane Talk 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with another article. WP:NOT and WP:OR, etc, but this is quite a common phrase... -Aknorals 09:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable on the internet and a useful article. 80.41.239.195 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Internet slang or somesuch. GChriss 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge With Internet Slang for preference. The entymology of emergent forms of syntax should be preserved as beas as possible, especially given the brief nature of their fame before becoming the basis of other terms, as has happened with other internet-based terminology and memes. This might seem unimportant now, but may become important later - especially if someone decides to write a paper on certain terms and their online genesis.
• ZOMG MERGE!!!!!1111 - per above. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  Changed to ZOMG KEEP !!!!!!!!!!1111111111 oneoneoneone elevendyone onehundredeleven 1111 2(50(432))/2(2(50(432)))(500/pi)(15/23)+25(5)-125/(15/23) - I am always using this because I forget what it means. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 03:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• ZOMG KEEP I needed to look up Zomg and here it was. The article is useful and shouldn't be delted or merged. Ayavaron 03:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Leet. If you think having "its own page is excessive", then you should propose a merge, not a deletion. --Zoz (t) 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, for the love of dog, what does it have to do with leet???  Grue  20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • From ZOMG:"ZOMG is a derivative of the Internet shorthand term OMG" - from leet:"leet is defined as the corruption or modification of written text". From ZOMG:"It is most likely representative of carelessly pressing the left shift key to capitalize "OMG" and hitting the adjacent "Z" key in the process." - from leet:"A similar derivation comes from the location of the Z key next to the left shift. When typing words such as OMG or OMFG, it has become common to instead type ZOMG or ZOMFG to simulate the accidental typing of the Z in an effort to press the shift key." Hope this helps. By the way, Leet article mentions OMG 10 times. Maybe it would be better to merge zOMG into God (expression) (where OMG links), or to keep the article, but it is definitely related to leet. --Zoz (t) 21:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Internet Slang. ZOMG is a notable expression, but not notable enough to warrant its own article. Kariià 19:41, 24 June 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.