Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IANAL

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. Sango123 (e) 00:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IANAL

DELETE non notable internet slang, neologism, wikipedia is not a dictionary Interestingstuffadder 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• IMHO, we should redirect to internet slang, kthxbye -- stillnotelf is invisible 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and link from Internet slang. bbx 00:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. —Ruud 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — RJH 15:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - While it is on the internet slang page, I think its explanation is interesting, notable and needed -- MacAddct1984  18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Madaddct1984. Stifle (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An important article, and even though it may seem like a dictionary entry, it can still be considered a significant term of Internet slang. Agree with Macaddct1984. — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 02:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --andrew 04:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know if it needs its own entry or if it could be part of a list, but it does appear to have fairly wide use, e.g. on usenet [1] going back to January 1990 [2] Шизомби 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added the latter link to the article, this sort of source is exactly what it needs. -- stillnotelf is invisible 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I actually found this article useful and interesting. Gremagor 14:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It does seem to be fairly widespread. --Optichan 16:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a very common term; this article is an encyclopaedic discussion of what could otherwise be a mere dicdef. --bainer (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I just linked to it. Important to have a shortcut for an otherwise long-winded but vital statement. John Reid 15:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Importance is sufficiently explained in article, though admittedly not many other Internet abbreviations have their own articles. Cromag 17:53, 15 April 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.