Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W00t

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 and redirect. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W00t

W00t (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article is pure original research and fails verifiability. There aren't multiple non-trivial reliable published works about "w00t". Delete this for the good of Wikipedia stated policy reasons. - crz crztalk 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete You can spell it any way you want, but it still fails WP:OR and WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 20:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Err, see, it's mentioned everywhere and has become part of common lingo.[1][2]. Game over, please. Yanksox 20:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • NOT a dictionary, Nick. - crz crztalk 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • We're not defining it, it's gone outside of the point of being part of speech to something that is accepted like "dude" or "wicked." Yanksox 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. More proper. Yanksox 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I do not find this article particularly informative. Its OR, but and it just seems out of place here in Wikipedia. I would recommend delete, seems more like a dictionary entry. Navou talk 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and leave open the possibility of a smerge if things are verified. Gosh, I use this on Yanksox's talk page, and then all of a sudden... CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Welcome to Crz's world. Yanksox 20:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect - I agree with Yanksox, redirecting to the List of Internet slang phrases article seems the right option, unless we can get some references in this article. Jayden54 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/Query Are there any actual objections to redirection? Navou talk 22:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong redirect Its own article is not particularly necessary, but there's no reason we shouldn't assume that this is a very possible search term. -- Kicking222 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added the appropriate entry on List of Internet slang phrases, any objections to the performance of a redirect? It seems this is the forming consensus. Navou talk 23:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Redirect Per Jayden54 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redlock (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Redirect per Kicking222. Danny Lilithborne 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent article! Systemex 04:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I love the word w00t, I use it all the time, its a decent article with history on the word, whats the problem here? Mozman 04:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Erm... have you read the nomination? It's states the problem pretty clearly. - crz crztalk 04:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete: either keep ot redirect. Widely recognized internet slang expression. But the page is in definite need of references. — RJH (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect; I thought someone said they'd added it to the list, but when I took a look just now it wasn't there. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry for any confusion. I had removed w00t from the List of Internet slang phrases a couple of times. I try to keep a close watch on that page to make sure things stay sourced. It tends to get out of hand very quickly over there. I have little opinion on the subject, but I would vote for a redirect over a deletion. It's a fairly common term now. --Onorem 22:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added it in w/ a source. Yanksox 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's noteworthy. It's not internet slang, even if the spelling is. 70.106.210.112 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 12:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for the good of Wikipedia. W00t! -- weirdoactor t|c 15:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Votes like this one are what's wrong with AfD. Address the merits of the nom, dammit. - crz crztalk 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comments like the one above are what's wrong with AfD, Wikipedia, and indeed THE UNIVERSE. -- weirdoactor t|c 18:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Addendum: from your nom: Delete this for the good of Wikipedia; this presumes that you know better than many, many, many, many other users, admins, and bureaucrats what is "good for Wikipedia". This is strikingly similar to the argument used in the 80's re: pornography; "I know it when I see it". While you are perfectly within your rights to have a subjective opinion about what is "good for Wikipedia", I'll thank you not to use that as part of a nomination to delete an article. An article should not be deleted for such a subjective reason.
      • In addition; if Wikipedia...the online encyclopedia, mind you...were to start deleting similar articles (leet, for example), we would soon be the laughingstock of the online community. This would be comparable to Fark.com banning nudity, MySpace banning horrible in-browser music, or FilePile allowing the RIAA & MPAA to have accounts. Please re-consider this deletion...if not for the good of Wikipedia, but to allow those users who are publicly known as Wikipedia editors to save face, to allow us not to have our lunch money taken away by those Britannica bastards. Please. Thank you. The user from Chicago yields the remainder of his time to the floor. Or the ceiling. Whichever. -- weirdoactor t|c 18:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The user from New Jersey thanks for user from Chicago for his reasonable criticism, but reminds him to address the substantive arguments in the nomination, namely WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, not the fluff appended by the user from New Jersey at the end there. - crz crztalk 19:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. Plus, I just wanted to say W00t! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NEO, our guideline for neologisms, requires reliable secondary sources about the term before we have an article on it. Internet slang terms are a sub-category of neologisms. GRBerry 03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to list of internet slang terms. I do note, however, that the word has quite a long history, going back to at least Elizibethan times, pace Shakespeare: "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York. W00t!" Herostratus 05:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirection Comment: There is a popular online retailer by the same name, so perhaps it should instead redirect to a disambiguation page pointing to both the List of Internet slang phrases and Woot (retailer). Frankenroc 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it clearly needs work on the sourcing however. Trollderella 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but improve the sourcing. A quick Lexis-Nexis search turns up a half-dozen news articles mentioning the term just from the past year or so, so improving the sourcing should be doable. --Delirium 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I am getting six hits in Westlaw's "allnews" database for (w00t). Three of them around "w00t!media", a media company targeted to gamers. The last three - from the Chicago Tribune, the Stuttgarter Zeitung, and the Boulder Daily Camera - pretty much just give the definition. All three are not articles at all - just lists of internet slang terms with translations. The mentions are extremely brief and there's no word as to etymology or usage. - crz crztalk 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect There's semi-notable information, which could be used in research and for general curiosity. Wouldn't hurt if it was with the other internet phrases as well. -- 00:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the internet-slang article. There's no way this one term will ever be accompanied by enough information to warrant an entire article, but I agree that it's relevant enough to be documented. Klestrob44 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • d3l33t and redirect to List of internet slang phrases. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:OR. The Kinslayer 10:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. --- RockMFR 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases, lock the doors and shutter the windows.--Alf melmac 22:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The word is used even in non-computer/gamer related culture (TV shows and the like) and, while I'm pressed for time and can't look right now, there are probably some sources. What are we going to delete next, pwned? Yes, the article needs some fixing, but that doesn't mean that it needs deleting. I also think that it is so commonly used, even out of its original culture, that it deserves its own article, rather than to be merged onto a list. J0lt C0la 02:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was just reading today's User Friendly cartoon, which uses the word woot, looked it up on WP and noted the deletion tag. IMO, as it is something people do look up (at least I did) it is worth an article. Whether the article is good is another question: Clearly it needs improvement, also in giving sources (though this is difficult when documenting very recent cultural phenomena, and I acknowledge that WP risks bordering on original research there) but it is way more informative (and also correct, I suppose) than the one-liner in List of Internet slang phrases. Simon A. 11:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC) -- I just googled to check for further sources. We now have two references though not exactly scholary ones. That's a start IMO. Simon A. 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The word has certainly earned its own article due to its popularity. If nothing else, merge with internet slang page. Slicedoranges 11:07, 22 December 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.