Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wgwag

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. Chick Bowen 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wgwag

Wgwag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Dictionary defintion for a neologism. There doesn't appear to be any coverage of this word or it's usage by reliable sources. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Author removed prod without explanation. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• This term is used extensively on several message boards, including perhaps the most widely read law school admissions board. Terms restricted to internet use (including LOL and ASL) are within Wikipedia's collection. That these may or may not appear in a dictionary has no bearing on the usefulness of the entry. The entry is useful precisely because the term is not easily looked up in a dictionary: thousands of pre-law students look at these message boards, and without Wikipedia, they might not understand what they are reading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.212.159 (talk • contribs).
• Author: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=WGWAG It has clearly made its way into common parlance (if internet jargon can be so construed!). I had no idea what this meant for months, and could not find it here. It is about time someone (namely, myself) added this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesomdude (talk • contribs).

  Except LOL has sources that show that the term is notable. I can't seem to find any reliable sources (and Urban Dictionay isn't one) that show the notability of this term. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. We don't document every phrase that shows up in a few forums. If this is being used on LSAT's, the legal profession is doomed. Fan-1967 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wow, you guys are fascists. It is even referenced by a Law Professor: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/31/hoffman-on-xoxohth/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesomdude (talk • contribs).

  That's not a reference, that's just a comment in response to a blog post. And no personal attacks, by the way. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  fair enough, my bad. Professor Hoffman does link to a relevant thread, however: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/xoxohth_12_the.html - here, he links to http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=515950&forum_id=2&PHPSESSID=e4ce6523e7e060471c530bb107ff6d97 where the first example, is indeed, WGWAG. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesomdude (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

• Delete per nomination.--Kubigula (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• I should also like to note that this is not merely a small forum - autoadmit.com receives more than 100,000 unique visitors each month, and there are literally hundreds of threads in which this term appears. Believe me - I wish this were not the case - but is not a wholly insignificant meme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesomdude (talk • contribs).

  On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time.

• Do you guys get your kicks deleting articles? Clearly, accuracy is important for an enyclopedia, but why wouldn't one want to have the broadest, most complete enyclopedia possible? Is it a bandwidth of webspace issue? I am just fundamentally confused - normatively - why articles like this, and the soccer league deleted by NeoChaos are excised. Perhaps you guys should edit encyclopedia while you're at it.Awesomdude 06:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  comment: I'm pretty sure you meant encyclopedia, but from someone that can't spell "awesome" I don't really have high all that high of expectations. While the rest of us are editing wikipedia, you may want to read a dictionary -- wtfunkymonkey 06:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  Well, I must say it is indeed a surprise to see an ad hominem from a mind lofty enough to conjure up a moniker as impressive as "wtfunkymonkey." I am sure you are considered a pun-pundit amongst your friends. It turns out, illustrious funkymonkey, that awesomedude is already registered. I am glad you were able to hone in on my typo. It was a significant contribution to this discussion. I rest assured knowing that wikipedia's content is edited by people of such magnanimity! Awesomdude 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NEO. – This is a useful article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.206.231 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom and per WP:NEO --- Tito Pao 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per WP:NEO. Never heard of this acronym before.--Niohe 13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable neologism not meeting WP:NEO and as an article which exists to attack and ridicule a racial or ethnic group. Edison 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP stop the hate 75.55.177.247 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP (incase it wasn't officated by my comments above) 168.122.174.19 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for admitting your vote-stacking. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what vote-stacking means; but, if you're implying that I have created dummy accounts, you are sadly mistaken. My comment was simply trying to take part in what appears to be a roll call vote, given that I never explicitly forwarded a "Keep" / "Delete" position. Nice try, though. [Awesomdude]168.122.174.19 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 168.122.174.19 00:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• i found this article useful. it is very frustrating not being able to understand slang like WGWAG and I thank Wiki for helping spread its meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legalschooler (talk • contribs). — Legalschooler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per nom. Resolute 04:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neither assertion of notability nor source. Eludium-q36 19:13, 19 January 2007 (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.