Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOL (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=LOL}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=LOL}})

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The LOL article is mostly just a definition of the term, which belongs on Wiktionary instead. While LOL is a popular slang term, the article doesn't provide enough in-depth information beyond what a dictionary already covers.

If we keep this, should every internet abbreviation (BRB, OMG, ROFL) get its own page too? Instead of having separate articles for every slang term, it's better to merge this into a broader article on internet slang or just redirect it to Wiktionary. 1keyhole (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. 1keyhole (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. I won't litigate other abbreviations here. LOL is a notable term with an encyclopaedic history worth preserving; the current state of the article doesn't impact that the topic is notable and could be expanded ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/05/28/the-surprisingly-long-and-unfunny-history-of-lol/]) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. There are cases where terms have articles because sources provide commentary on their history and social significance, which wouldn't be described in much detail on an average dictionary. [https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-haha-lol-through-the-ages-41562 There] [https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/lol-the-abbreviation-for-laugh-out-loud-turns-25-9436661.html is] [https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-12893416 coverage] on the history out there, not to mention all those reputable sources on the analysis section, which wouldn't fit a dictionary. Other terms like OMG are individually evaluated by their own merits. Maybe the "Variations on the theme" section could be cut down, but that can be fixed by editing. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• The variations section always needs cutting down, and for years I kept doing that (e.g. Special:Diff/34413823). The problem is that that part of the article is a magnet for unverifiable invented stuff. Ironically, that was what the whole article looked like back in its early years. Vide Special:Permalink/17843080 for example. The vandalism did settle down somewhat when it stopped being just a laundry list of examples with no actual verifiable linguistic analysis at all, yet another example of how one successfully tackles cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing.

  The nominator's argument that this somehow sets a precedent of some kind is entirely based upon total ignorance of Wikipedia history. We've managed to keep dictionary articles on all of the nonce words out for almost 2 decades at this point by having this article. Witness {{On AFD|Roflcopter}} and {{On AFD|Lollerskates}} for just two AFD examples and the many redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/LOL.

  Feel free to prune the unsourced overgrowth of non-Wiktionary variations yet again in my stead. It turns out that I am busy with a bizarre combination of an old onion railway in Indiana, a 19th century French poet-cum-botanist-cum-geographer, and some machine-generated places in the U.K.. And Marshall Fields. ☺

  Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, borderline speedy. This is clearly a topic that has been covered in ways that give it an encyclopedic scope. BD2412 T 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. {{tq|The LOL article is mostly just a definition of the term}} is simply not true. The term is culturally significant and the article includes details about its influence, reception, and spread, the majority of which could not be reasonably included in a dictionary. (As another user pointed out, the lack of articles for other abbreviations is not a valid argument, but FWIW some of them are covered in the article you have nominated for deletion...) Pink Bee (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The article goes well beyond a dictionary definition. It has well sourced sections on history and analysis that clearly meet WP:GNG. I don't find any of the reasons that OP has proposed to be valid WP:DELREASONS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• WP:GNG is not particularly relevant here, as the issue is not about general notability but rather whether the article aligns with Wikipedia's content policies. WP:NOTDICTIONARY is key—while the article may go beyond a simple definition, that alone doesn’t justify its inclusion if it primarily serves an explanatory rather than encyclopedic purpose. The presence of sourced history and analysis doesn’t automatically override concerns about scope and purpose 1keyhole (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• WP:NOTDICTIONARY has a section about articles like this: WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I believe that applies here. In particular, {{tq|such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term}} is a remarkably good description of what is in the LOL article. Pink Bee (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Why delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello what idk (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:IAR - regardless of whether there is enough information beyond a dictionary definition, our core readers will be expecting to see this on top when then use Google or another search engine. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG and is an incredibly popular phrase to the point where there are academic sources on it. "Not a dictionary" doesn't apply here. jolielover♥talk 05:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I fully agree! Trojanosos (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Did nom read the article? This article very clearly goes beyond a dictionary definition and meets WP:GNG. And plus I don't even think that Wikipedia not being a dictionary would even apply here as LOL has much more history than the examples that nom listed above. IncompA 17:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.