Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gramogram

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 keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gramogram

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DICDEF. Prod contested by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Agree with nominator. Not a dictionary. CT55555 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing my delete due to the convincing argument of Lord Belbury CT55555 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems broader than a simple dictionary definition, given the half-sourced arts and culture section which the nominator deleted as trivia immediately before prodding the article last week. There's surely more to be said about their use in SMS language and possibly telegram style, also. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion based on nominator's gutting of it would set a dreadful precedent. Agree article could be improved, but deleting it on those grounds would also set an impossible precedent. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above points, looks like it has enough content to be encyclopedic. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew that deletion of the IPC section was highly questionable, since it has secondary sources for some entries. However, the other content that is not in the current version was correctly deleted as OR. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.