Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P33n

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. – Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a 1337 slang dictionary. Delete. --Sherool (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I don't see why leet slang cannot be included, especially considering the length of the article leet. From the description of the article, this is a notable word usage, and is not just a dictionary but a cultural phrase of significance. It is equally as notable as terms such as lol are. 203.122.225.241 13:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I am going to change my vote to Merge but I can't be sure where to merge to. The leet article doesn't seem to adequately deal with this kind of thing, nor does the slang words article. But one of the two should do. 203.122.225.241 17:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. Some of the differences between encyclopaedias and dictionaries are explained in encyclopedic dictionary and use-mention distinction. Editors who wish to be lexicographers should contribute to Wiktionary, where lexicographers are welcome. Uncle G 16:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've never heard of it and it's certainly not on a par with lol. It doesn't give any insight into cultural context and functions purely as a glossary. --BigBlueFish 14:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The article gives the (unproven) usage, (speculative) etymology, and meaning of a word. Despite the above claim to the contrary, it is a canonical dictionary article (albeit one that lacks proper citations and various other elements of a complete dictionary article), and is not an encyclopaedia article at all. Contrast this with LOL (Internet slang) which deals with Internet laughter slang and people's opinions about its use, and leaves etymologies, meanings, pronunciations, translations, and synonyms of words to Wiktionary. The only person/place/concept/event/thing for an encyclopaedia article by this title to be about is penis, which we already have an article on. A redirect doesn't seem justifiable. Delete. Uncle G 16:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's enough on the web as it is dealing with made up words that about four people type. Don't let this nonsense invade Wikipedia as well. Keresaspa 18:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Interlanguage' to l33t wikipedia 132.205.45.110 20:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is Wikipedia, not Wikimadeupwords. Reyk 21:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G. This is just a word in Leet, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary of Leet. --Metropolitan90 05:11, 24 November 2005 (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.