Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZOMG (2nd nomination)

ZOMG

ZOMG was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-20. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZOMG.

ZOMG! Delete. Not encyclopedic. Hardee67 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is original research, combined with some parts taken from utterly unreliable sources (urban dictionary, usenet messages). Once the content for which we have no reliable sources is taken out, there will be nothing left. Also, this slang term already exists at List of Internet slang phrases, so no need to merge it anywhere. The previous AfD debate had Keep votes where people were saying they didn't want to lose the valuable content. Since the valuable content entirely violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, the previous AfD debate results are crap. Find some reliable sources, or kill this article. --Xyzzyplugh 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered with the rest of its kin over at leet. Peyna 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons above --Xnobjafnyy 02:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep Common enough Internet slang, if not keep then merge there. LinaMishima 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to God (expression) Dinosaur puppy 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is interesting, and some of it's sourced (Urban Dictionary is OK, considering how tough internet memes are for sources; if the rest can't be sourced, it can be merged or redirected to God (expression) harmlessly. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary is NOT ok, urban dictionary is just random anonymous people typing in whatever they feel like. Read WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Urban dictionary falls in the same category as the following, from WP:RS, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking". --Xyzzyplugh 08:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xyzzyplugh. Erechtheus 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Internet slang. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Xyzzplugh Dlyons493 Talk 10:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should onle be at the list of internet slang, it does not deserve its own article Konman72 10:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - comment then merge not delete, surely? LinaMishima 12:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to God (expression) - Iolakana|^T 11:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laziness to type words out should not be the basis for coining new words. --Xrblsnggt 12:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment actually, in languages it often is. LinaMishima 12:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment try learning Finnish sometime. Anyhow, NPOV - it's happened, our opinions are irrelevant. --Kizor 14:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, anyway it was interesting. :) NCurse _work 14:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could be true but could equally be a hoax. Doesn't matter, I thik it still fails WP:NEO neo-acro-logism ;-) Strong delete Ohconfucius 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]