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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of online-gaming slang[edit]

Half of the entries in this article are actually general internet slang (e.g. leet, AFK, g2g). Many others are game-specific ('clothie', 'twink' etc are World of Warcraft only). Many others are original research and very rarely used (e.g. WMAO, YACK). Finally, this list is almost completely unsourced (not counting the "World of Warcraft glossary" as a source), as opposed to list of internet slang phrases, which has a source for every entry. I propose merging any relevant entries with list of internet slang phrases, provided a source can be found, or deleting this entirely. Mel sa ran 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the article I do not think that it should be merged, as many of the items are of little interest to those who would want to view the 'internet slang' article. It was originally split from the 'internet slang' page because that page was getting very long, and so I created several different pages to suit different aspects. If anything, the page should be stripped down to those phrases which are referenced. :) —porges_(talk) 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much would be left when we delete game-specific slang, unsourced entries, general internet slang, and unused OR words? Mel sa ran 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, but I don't think it should be part of list of internet slang because of the minority appeal of the items. On the other hand, if the article is deleted, this stuff will make it into that article (for want of its own)... thus why I think it should remain separate. —porges_(talk) 00:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that there isn't an argument for deletion here that wouldn't really apply to List of internet slang phrases. Duplicate entries, lack of individual sources, rare terms is a clean-up concern, same with merging, not a deletion one. It might also be worth looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang phrases and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMORPG terms and acronyms 2. Or perhaps start a discussion regarding the state of Category:Glossaries. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I would strongly suggest closing this discussion and trying a merge discussion first, unless you really believe it should be deleted, as opposed to the other things you're suggesting. FrozenPurpleCube 02:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's probably very little to merge, as everything in list of internet slang phrases must be sourced, and a "World of Warcraft glossary" isn't really a valid source. Mel sa ran 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if there's little to merge, then it'll be an easy job of merging. And um, the WOW glossary is on worldofwarcraft.com. That's an official site owned by Blizzard Entertainment. I could understand reasonable caution in regards to content about Blizzard on their websites, but I see no reason not to consider them a reliable source, especially in regards to something which is clearly within their field. Really, I don't see why on earth you'd not consider it a valid source. FrozenPurpleCube 12:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ehm, that's because it is WoW-specific slang (e.g. "clothie" = a character wearing cloth armour = only in WoW). Game-specific slang shouldn't be included in a general "list of online-gaming slang", and a separate article on List of World of Warcraft slang is probably not notable enough/too in-depth (I think there must be such an article on WoWWiki). Mel sa ran 12:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, thank you for explaining your position more clearly, now I can address it properly. WOW is an online game, so therefore slang in it is actually slang used in online gaming. There is subject-specific slang, which would be recognizable by its focus, but there's plenty of slang on the glossary that is clearly not WOW-specific. You may need a background in these games to be able to tell the difference, and there may be some tough cases, but it's not what I'd consider a major problem. Besides, as WOW is one of the (if not the) largest populations in online games, it's clearly a subject to cover. I don't know that it'd be a page on its own, or even a subsection of one, but that's not being asked for here anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 13:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But if we include specific slang for every game, the list will become hugely unorganised, with all kinds of terms that have little to do with each other in one list. Then you should fork the game-specific words to a separate list, and while I personally, as an inclusionist, don't have a problem with such lists, I don't think that there is a community consensus to have such in-depth lists ("Wikipedia is not a game guide", etc). (As a sidenote, I played WoW for two years, and have completed Molten Core, etc, so I'm not really unfamiliar with the terms) Mel sa ran 13:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns are editing ones, not ones with the source though. There are some general-purpose gaming terms on the glossary by Blizzard, and some that are game-specific. Deciding what to include or not? A reasonable question, but primarily a question of editing if the concept of the list is itself valid. Personally, I think there's more of a genre problem than a game-specific problem anyway. MMORPGS versus RTS versus FPS versus whatever else there is. FrozenPurpleCube 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete no encyclopedic value, notability & verifiability problems. Mukadderat 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two out of the three are easy to meet. [1][2][3][4]. Really, neither verifiability or notability make good arguments here, they're easily refuted. You'd be better off explaining what you mean by "no encyclopedic value" . FrozenPurpleCube 02:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks to me that only the terms from wow are sourced, and the rest is just WP:OR or sourced from a non-reliable source. If we strip it down, it'll just have the terms from WOW in it and I dont believe there is notability for a WOW glossary here. This type of stuff belongs in a specialized gamer encyclopedia Corpx 04:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I personally think the topic is becoming overgrown with WP:OR. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As listcruft, OR, and all arguments given above. PS.. "clothie" and "squishie" aren't just in WoW, they're in pretty much any game that has cloth-wearing classes (including AD&D). spazure (contribs) 09:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge Unless WP is a dictionary, this should be deleted or merged. --Mnemnoch 05:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!! I see this has a lot of WP:OR and, thats all I have to say. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 16:21, 14 August 2007 (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.