Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pwn (3rd nomination)

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 merge to Leet#Owned and pwned. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pwn[edit]

[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)

It's time this article finally got pwned. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the bar to notability for a word is very high indeed. A basic glance at this article shows that it consists of definition, etymology, usage over time, pronunciation, and four cultural references. All but the last are precisely dictionary material, and the last is not enough to sustain an article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is thus no justification for this article. Word notability is a high bar and this does not meet it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to Leet#Owned and pwned, and leave a redirect as a valid alternative to deletion. Given there is a subsection in the leet article about this word, a redirect makes sense, and if there is a part that is useful but not enough to sustain an article, that’s the right place to put it. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Leet or to Glossary of video game terms. No need for a standalone but a searchable term --Masem (t) 15:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Leet#Owned and pwned, per Red Phoenix._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible search term, so whatever we do here, it won't involve using the delete tool.—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:DICDEF is commonly misuderstood as meaning that we should delete something. It doesn't as the main point of that policy is that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." This is harder than it sounds because editors are commonly too literal-minded to accept different words as synonyms. So, we have separate articles for cacography; catachresis; eye dialect; sensational spelling; &c. even though these are closely related concepts. Pwn has a similar meaning to words like domination; exultation;humiliation;jeer;victory;&c. but if we were to try merging it then there will be complaints about sourcing and synthesis. It's best kept separate while the worst case would be merger into the glossary of video game terms. It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so we need not stint ourselves. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the crux of your argument. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A vague wave to WP:OSE is not helpful because, if you actually read that essay, it says that '"other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid'. When I produce evidence rather than unsupported assertion, it's especially valid because my examples are pertinent and WP:OSE also states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent". My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Leet. - We have articles on independently notable terms, which isn't this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion and merger are opposite outcomes; one deletes the content while the other doesn't. See WP:MAD for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Andrew Davidson, the "/" sign usually means "or". Hence, he votes to either delete the page or merge its contents to the target article. No WP:MAD involved in his vote. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Slash (punctuation) explains that "slash is also used as a shorter substitute for the conjunction "and"". Andrew🐉(talk) 17:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the most relevant article (internet slang maybe?), Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Maybe there are relevant reliable sources about the history of the term, but I'm having a hard time finding those. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP https://www.inverse.com/gaming/pwned-meaning-definition-origins-video-games-internet-hackers gives quite a lot of coverage about this word. Dream Focus 12:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP:VG/RS is concerned, Inverse is not a reliable source. Even if it were, one additional source doesn't mean WP:GNG has been met. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources were already found in the first AFD. "Word cops take down 'pwn'" in The Detroit News and "You've Been 'Pwned'" on AlterNet. The first one is at [1] but you only read part of the article. The other I'm not sure where its at now. The second AFD [2] had some reliable sources mentioning it such as the Wall Street Journal but the link doesn't work anymore. Dream Focus 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Inverse is referenced at over a thousand Wikipedia articles. It was never discussed at WP:RS. As for video game reliable sources, it says "These sources have been discussed but no resolution for their reliability is available. They have not been discussed at sufficient length to achieve consensus." So no consensus not to consider it a reliable source. It has 30 paid employees writing stuff for it, it has editorial oversight, it is a legitimate reliable source. Dream Focus 03:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments. This should never have been an article. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 19:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per nom and Masem’s argument. Can probably be mentioned at both targets. Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leet#Owned and pwned: The term is talked about in the target article. Hence, there's no need for a standalone page for that. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Leet#Owned and pwned - Most of the information in the actual reliable sources presented in the article are simply defining the term and its origin, which is already largely covered at the main article on Leet, but there is some bits that would be useful to merge to that section, such as its inclusion in the official Scrabble dictionary. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant article, and "pwning" is definitely notable. Numerous articles have been written about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I-82-I (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Leet#Owned and pwned per above. Clear WP:NOTDIC issue here. No need for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Articles should be more than what a word means, and that doesn't mean running into a list of examples of every time a word is used. Much better if this is covered in context with other internet slang. Jontesta (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I see nothing wrong with the content; I'm just not sure this will ever be more than a very short, out of context stub. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2020 (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.