Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolgorithm

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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolgorithm

Fails Google test (one hit). Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• delete, no evidence of widespread use. Kappa
• Delete. Per nom and Kappa. - Liberatore(T) 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite not being widely accessible over the Web, the phrase has gained popular status with many game developers in the North East of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.70.231 (talk • contribs)
  • Please provide evidence that "the phrase has gained popular status with many game developers in the North East of England" per WP:V. Kappa 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The word is now commonly used in code written by Teesside students, which is not publishable because of licensing issues. However, the term has also been used verbally (and possibly within source code) by certain games company employees, generally those employed by companies with strong University of Teesside connections. (Blitz Games, Fusion Digital, Halch, and Mere Mortals are a few examples.) The article would benefit from an explanation of its current (and previous) usage, rather than a description of how it was coined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.70.231 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-17 23:51:29 UTC
      • If the only way for readers to verify what a lolgorithm is is to read the copyrighted and unpublished source code to various computer programs, then this article is unverifiable. Please have this concept documented and published in a reputable computer science journal and then come back to Wikipedia with cited sources. Uncle G 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I would not be at all surprised if the word was to be found in various open source projects. Lord knows I've seen evidence of Lolgorithms in action judging by the way some of them run. If that was the case, the source code would be publishable (in fact the publishing would be enforced). Would this, or a collection of these, be judged an appropriate source to cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.18.191 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 January 2006
• The article cites no sources. I can find no sources. 80.5.70.231 explains above that there are no sources. This article is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And all of the "keep" opinions below explain that there aren't any sources, too. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable neologism. Sycthos^Talk 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable neologism. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom abakharev 06:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I work for a respected mobile-phone games company in London, having left Teesside two years ago and obviously I have many contacts from my time there, namely one of the 'creators' of the Lolgorithm. The term is now used in many of the programming circles i frequent both verbally and in code ( namely comments) and I fail to see how anyone can conceivably 'prove' its existance when it is used in copyrighted code. This doesn't alter the fact that it exists in (albeit) small programming circles and it demonstratably will become increasingly more widespread. I feel that many of the negative comments displayed here are from people that have no link to the industry that has coined the phrase and therefore will never use it. I feel that these aforementioned views carry no more weight than unsubstaniated claims either. I suspect that I will come under scrutiny as I cannot explititly use the company name without prior permission I would quite happily give details to contact myself, so as to supply 'evidence' of this phrases extended use.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.49.63 (talk • contribs) , and is the user's only edit.
  • I fail to see how anyone can conceivably 'prove' its existance — In other words: It is unverifiable. Unverifiable articles are deleted. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This word is gaining a rapid expansion in the field of Computer Graphics and Games programming, it is an underground word that is gaining an increasingly popular status by software companies around the world. While tangable evidence of this word is difficult to provide, for the aforementioned reasons, a simple survey of use of the word found several members of the United Kingdom games industry are aware of the word's existance, and use it in verbal discourse and written source code on a daily basis. While legal licencing issues make verfiying this word difficult, as it has such a wide scope across all aspects of Software Development, there is an absolute guarantee that the use of this word will become exponentially more prevalent in the future. Keep this word! It has received a warm welcome from the software and graphics industries, and deserves the same treatment here!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlistairParr (talk • contribs) , who is the author of the article.
  • Comment: before voting "keep", please read and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on original research. Every piece of information in the encyclopedia must be independently verifiable. If this word does become widespread in the future and sources become available to prove it, you are more than welcome to re-add this article then. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • tangable evidence of this word is difficult to provide — In other words: It is unverifiable. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have come across this word numerous times while working in the games industry. I've noticed the word has become very much common place and has spread mainly via word of mouth and through working code. I would personally like this word to stick, although not known globably, it has become a valuable means of describing ones code which is notably messy and funny while producing unexpected, yet pleasing results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.80.71 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 January 2006
  • I have come across this word — Wikipedia does not accept personal testimony of editors. Please cite sources. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - For an encyclopedia that freely includes nonsense, fictional articles concerning such topics as Gundam and Zoids this article seems by comparison to be a far more worthy contribution. Deleting articles and then inviting users to write them again due to their own good will is a disgraceful manner in which to act. This article should be kept and all discussion pertaining to its removal ceased or expunged.
  • Wikipedia doesn't freely include nonsense. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This word is used widely by tutors and supervisors all over the United Kingdom when they refer to the work of their underlings. It's a slang term, and not easily verified, as it will not be written in formal reports, papers, or other. The only type of paper that would have this published would be a general socialogical paper discussing how supervisors and leaders discard their work as not "industry standard".
  • not easily verified — In other words: It is unverifiable. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep* Many of my friends at University use this word frequently to describe comical outcomes from programming errors. This may not be a word in the dictionary but it is still used by many people. The word bug for instance, to describe odd errors, is not a proper word, as it describes a small insect like creature, but was coined when a moth caused a computer problem back in the days of the beginning of computing, but now it is as commonplace a word as any. Maybe someday this word will too acheive this status.
  • This may not be a word in the dictionary — Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you think that you are adding a word to a dictionary, you have come to the wrong place. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've recently find out about the existance of this term and the great programming practice about it - to give the source code a new, better, funny look. Since that day I intend to use this practice resp. the lolgorithms intensively in all my source code with the hope that others will do it as well! Thank you for developing one of the most interesting programming instruments I've ever saw! If you want a verification of my words or of the term, just follow my source code around the net in the next months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihail121 (talk • contribs) Kappa 09:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe after enough people notice this new phenomenom, someone will write something verifiable about it in a reputable publication such as Wired. Unfortunately until that time it won't be suitable material for wikipedia. Kappa 09:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as unverifiable and serious sockpuppetry/anons. Stifle 09:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable protologism. -Colin Kimbrell 17:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: As a software engineer for an internationally known mobile phone solution provider I can verify that this term is used extensively not only within computer games programming (as I did my degree at Teesside in graphical programming), but all over the software engineering community. Its not a word I would choose to use at a board meeting or as a formal term, but within the engineering community it is extensively used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.119.175.147 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 January 2006
• KEEP: I am a Computer Graphics student, and my lecturer is locally well known for his work. I have come across this term on numerous occasions. And personally, it would seem that it is only two or three beauracratic people who want this deleted. Lighten up. "Please provide evidence that "the phrase has gained popular status with many game developers in the North East of England", "Maybe after enough people notice this new phenomenom, someone will write something verifiable about it in a reputable publication such as Wired".. You people need to lighten up. Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.201.184 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 21 January 2006

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.