Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMGLOL!

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 snow delete. Blueboy 96 14:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMGLOL![edit]

I can find no sources that suggest this term denotes any sort of "social subset". Ptcamn (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would save a lot of time and effort if JeanLatore (talk · contribs) would simply nominate their own articles for AfD immediately after creation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or just stop creating them... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jean hasn't been quick to pick up on that fact, and I'm wondering if he ever will. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Textbook original research, no sourcing (with little reliable scope to do so), no notability, little relevance to internet cultue in any view. Rudget (logs) 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can find no evidence to persuade me that this is not just made-up nancy ^(talk) 19:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - a couple kids using common internet memes, and making a group because of it, is nowhere near notable... I mean, would I be able to make an article called BONFIRE! about my group of friends that come over here on the weekends to get drunk around a bonfire? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This neologism is just a cut-and-shunt of two existing phrases and it makes no sense as the descriptive name of social grouping. Of course, just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean it isn't so but the total lack of any references is not encouraging. Googling it shows that Urban Dictionary has it (without the exclamation mark) as a expression meaning "extra funny" but not as a social group. There are also some people using it as user names on social networking sites (again without the exclamation mark) but nothing at all to indicate that it might be a social group. Finally it is the name of somebody's blog. So, stuck half way between hoax and non notable neologism, it seems that it has no hope. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG DEL (Delete) useless variant of lol made by combining OMG and LOL. These things may be notable on their own, but not as a phrase. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plz. Like, my bff Jean, seriously. Unless you can find something specific to that phrase that asserts its notability independently of Lol and Omg, then it needs to go. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per OR and the fact that it is not notable. tabor-^{drop me a line} 01:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence provided, none likely to be found. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DEL, WP:NFT, srsly. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable nonsense OR. Enigma ^message 03:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear original research, fails WP:NEO. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:OR. Possibly time to throw out some WP:SNOWballs, too. JPG-GR (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Del nn JJ (t) 6ish 7/6/8

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.