Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TL;DR

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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.

TL;DR: keep.

Numerically, the Keep's have it, but not with a lot of sound policy-backed argument to support them. The delete (and redirect to wictionary) camp are arguing that this is a dictdef, and the keepers, for the most part, don't do a terribly good job of refuting that. Thus, I was initially leaning towards closing this as delete, knowing full-well it would be DRV bait. The one argument that swayed me was Carrite, who initially wanted to delete, but then changed to saying that this was an essential piece of wiki-jargon, and should be kept under WP:IAR. I think that's what most of the other keepers were saying too, even if they didn't find the right policy to cite, so in the end, I let the weight of numbers win the day. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR

edit
TL;DR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There doesn't seem to be any substantial general coverage of the term, outside of dictionary definitions of it. Bosstopher (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but of the 300 pages that link here 0 are in articlespace, and wikipedia already has an essay WP:TL;DR for people to link to in those circumstances. This is also a problem that would be solved by soft redirecitng to wikitionary.Bosstopher (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The linking does need fixing and can be fixed, No need to shove it elsewhere when it serves its purpose here. –Davey2010Talk 00:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The term is not only covered in dictionaries, it is also covered in enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG (see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). However, the article should be expanded to include some more information that would not be appropriate to be put in a dictionary.Esquivalience t 23:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In light of the number of in-links and the argument that this is "an essential piece of wiki-jargon," I'm striking my Delete opinion and tilting the other way. IAR exception. Carrite (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a well-known and often used phrase in Internet culture. -- œ™ 19:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if we decide it's a notable neologism, that doesn't mean it should have its own article. To anyone !voting keep, what would a Featured Article version of this topic look like? I'm not seeing any sources that indicate this article could have more than a definition, use in popular culture, and content which duplicates the concept "summary". That's not enough for a stand-alone article. I wouldn't be opposed to a Merge to an appropriate topic or even a soft redirect as proposed above. Its use, its use on Wikipedia, and the number of incoming links have nothing to do with whether it should have an article on an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per nom, although I find it a shame that we don't have a "List of internet slang" article that this could be merged to. There is definitely a place for such discourse on Wikipedia, but TL;DR doesn't deserve its own article per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and (as someone above mentioned) this would never get past the stub phase.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and soft redirect. At present, not seeing how this can be destubbed, but perhaps this will change. Ping me if this is expanded or if any source is found that covers the topic in depth (as in, does more than defines it in a sentence or two). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: I don't care if it has 10 million cites, it's still a freaking dicdef. Nha Trang Allons! 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. And expand. Given the usage on internet, it won't remain just a dictdef stub if given some editing hours. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as TL;DR is a notable phrase, but it does need severe improvements. This is Mkbw50 signing out! 13:33, 9 April 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TL;DR&oldid=1138814781"