Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owned

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 Keep. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owned

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang dictionary or a slang usage guide. USENET is not a reliable source; the article cites no secondary sources and may violate WP:V. The article completely ignores the past tense of the word "own" and instead focuses entirely on recent meanings of the word. All of the examples are original research, besides the fact that Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. It belongs on Urban Dictionary or Jargon File, or List of Internet slang phrases, but I don't think it deserves it's own encyclopedia entry. The term is already on the Leet page. This article has no sources besides USENET, Phrack magazine (emails from a Pete Shipley), and Attrition.org mirrors. WP:NEO says Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. The phrase has alot of Google hits, but it's unknown how many of those use the slang meaning. Any slang meanings of the term can be added to Wiktionary. --Pixelface 22:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added Pwned above because it makes no sense to delete Owned but to keep its recent derivative, Pwned. These are both common words in Internet slang. Admittedly, the articles are full of unreferenced junk, but there must be a way to discard the peel and keep the fruit, in Chaucer's insightful analogy. Shalom ^Hello 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - aside from policy, is this really the kind of thing we want Wikipedia to become about? Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, as has been stated, and even if it was, this article doesn't even give the correct definition of the word. Lordrosemount 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems quite clear that these are dictionary definitions. --Malcolmxl5 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep thoaaving an entry on the 'List of Internet Slang Phrases' page should be enough. Perhaps it's entry over there could be expanded a bit, but it certainly doesn't need its own page. Offkorn 03:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article had a very good explanation of the word pwn and it's uses. I did not know what it meant until I searched it and came upon this article at the top of the list. Thank you for expanding my knowledge, I have heard the word MANY times, but have never known what it has meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.9.156 (talk • contribs) — 76.64.9.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I too found this article useful (despite the Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang dictionary or a slang usage guide situattion I find this one of the most usefull things about wikipedia).—Dananimal 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, being useful should not be a reason to keep this article Corpx 05:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The discussion of the meaning of words is encyclopedic. The mere listing--thats for a dictionary. This is well above the bar. 06:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Move to OWND There's no E in OWND. Lugnuts 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any discussion of how it used, where it came from, or what it means is WP:OR. The article sources examples of the word in use, but that demonstrates its existence. Not it's etymology, not its cultural significance, not its value to the human lexicon. When those sources start cropping up, then we've got something. But until then, this is just a dictionary entry steeped in editor's opinions, and that is unacceptable. Hell, even people in the gaming culture laugh about this article. Consequentially 07:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has clear potential for an article. Regardless of its current state. Has risen to common every day usage, including in popular media. Mathmo ^Talk 21:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (pwned only), whilst "Pwn" has cultural significence, it is at best a play on an existing term with a wide range of meanings already and should be referenced under the Owned article, which itself should be preserved Dr. R.K.Z 07:11 8th August 2007
Keep, or possibly merge the two articles into one. The terms "pwn" and "ownage" are clearly notable: Word cops take down 'pwn' in The Detroit News, and Dictionary tagged out by broadcasters in The Santa Rosa Press Democrat are examples of news articles about these very words. DHowell 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Santa Rosa piece isn't news or even op-ed. It's . . fluff? Someone's just filling column inches with that one. Beyond that, it doesn't answer the questions of etymology that need to be addressed in the article, or the question of significance. The Google News hits are misleading. The first article is about the word (and several others), but it tapers off quickly. The second "PWN" is someone's initials, the third is a company's initials. The next six are typos. The next article is the first article, just reported by a different newspaper. The second page is all initials. The third page is all initials, with the exception of a CNET article that uses the word but isn't about the word. The fourth page is all corporate references, and then a similar CNET experience where a website mentions the word but doesn't address it. I sense a theme here. Consequentially 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable slang term. The article is off to a good start; it can be improved and expanded. --musicpvm 08:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Pwn, and the synonym owned, doesn't deserve to be deleted. It would be like as if you're into deleting all leetspeak stuff here in Wikipedia, although WP isn't a dictionary of some sort. The word, in my opinion, although it's not the one used in proper/formal speech, is notable enough to be in here, so deleting it is unnecessary, although merging the two terms might be needed... Blake Gripling 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly servicable little articles. A "word" thats been around for years and used countless times can hardly be called a neologism either. —Xezbeth 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not a big fan of using other articles existance to justify keeps, but if LOL has it's own article, Owned certaintly should be allowed to have it's own article also. Deathawk 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare LOL's 20 relevant references to this article's four. And, as I've mentioned before, they're not even good references to demonstrate notability or significance. Consequentially 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Isis4563(talk) 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, obviously can be sourced. Neither are neo, per Xezbeth. Bearian 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep are you kidding me? keep! Because some of you choose not to like the word that is now COMMON lexicon. Go google search it. See what happens. You literati don't get it. Wiki exists to describing the world and what is in it, whether you syntactically agree with it or nor. ESPECIALLY when looking at cultural fads the preceding generation will scoff at the latest for ______ insert what the kids are doing these days. Brian3000 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. As the person who provided all of the existing cites, I realize that this is a difficult topic to source without delving too deeply into OR, and the majority of edits to the page do nothing to make it more credible. I think that it can be a good article, but it needs a lot of work and relentless upkeep. Poindexter Propellerhead 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - culturally significant. the article just needs to be improved. Alexandermiller 07:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we seriously debating this? Anyone alive more than 5 seconds knows this is a notable term, and it can certainly be properly sourced as such. (and no, I'm not going to endorce Shipley as a reliable source, for obvious reasons)spazure (contribs) 08:55, 11 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.