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.
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
KeepWP: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
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
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.
DreamFocus15:51, 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.
DreamFocus03:35, 9 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
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.
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.
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
KeepWP: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
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
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.
DreamFocus15:51, 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.
DreamFocus03:35, 9 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
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.