535:- it contains quite a few specific factual assertions that are not sourced, eg: "Recent history has shown..." - where? "research has shown..." - let's see it. "AL was started several years ago by two teens in the small town of Walker, Minnesota" - who says? "The abbreviation was first used in a Windows Live Messenger conversation" - how can you know that? etc --
493:), and that does not appear to be the case (I know personal experience is not sufficient to judge, but I've never received an email, a text, an IM, or any electronic communication with "AL" in it myself - though I've had thousands of LOLs, LMAOs, ROFLs etc) . However, if some reliable sources can be found, I'd then suggest making it a redirect to
405:
I understand where you are coming from, but with a matter such as this, an acronym that has been proven to have been in circulation as far back as 2004, there is not going to be many scholarly or credible (by normal standards) sources. Even if one was to search for sources to back up "LOL", the vast
282:
Because of how recently AL has become a part of everyday lingo, there has not been much research or academic study on "AL" YET, therefore there are not very many credible sources for its legitimacy, that much is true. The UrbanDictionary external link has been added, which states blatantly that in
613:
per being not notable. I think that sometimes people say "ALOL" (particularly if they're talking to someone named Allen or Alison or Albert or Alex), which is nothing more than a variant of LOL. Just as the AL and the NL go together in baseball, in this case I'm NL (not laughing).
283:
2004 someone, other than myself, stated that AL indeed does stand for "actually laughing", and that its use does in fact match up with the use that is described in the Wiki article. This article definitely does not deserve to be deleted and is a work in progress.
314:
Your point is well taken. I'm concerned that you're a brand new account after another brand new account nearly got blocked. But I want to make clear, for purposes of this AfD that's irrelevant to me. Your reasons are persuasive, except that they need some
406:
majority, if not absolutely every piece of information out there would be judged as non-reliable and not credible, because the standards that are in place for what constitutes a credible source do not apply to items such as a text-message based acronym.
340:
appears to be made up, I have certainly never heard or seen this neologism used. Inherent lack of reliable sources means that this will never pass the general notability guidelines. UrbanDictionary is one of the weakest sources I have ever seen. --
157:
377:. I couldn't find any reliable references either. New slang is made up all the time, and we can't have an article on everything. Come to think of it, I think that the only term similar to AL that actually has an article is
447:. No, not every source that turns up in a google search will be reliable, but they exist. Fact of the matter is that I cannot, nor can others, find a single reliable source for this term. The policies of
509:
detail in the article as it stands (There's no "Official
Origins", for example, as there is no official text acronym body, and some of it is just talking of text acronyms in general) --
151:
112:
633:
455:
apply to every single article on
Knowledge (XXG), and unless they can be met (i.e., a reliable source can be shown for this term), this article cannot be kept. --
117:
85:
80:
89:
72:
172:
139:
17:
422:
299:
133:
544:
518:
664:
129:
36:
648:
623:
605:
580:
549:
523:
479:
426:
397:
354:
328:
303:
274:
223:
197:
54:
489:
It needs to be notable in terms of having caught mainstream attention and being referenced by reliable sources (see
179:
76:
663:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
536:
510:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
68:
60:
410:
287:
391:
239:
207:
145:
324:
193:
49:
619:
414:
291:
219:
165:
593:
418:
373:
that hasn't caught any mainstream attention. Any alleged notability for the term has so far been
361:
295:
230:
506:
644:
576:
385:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
601:
472:
347:
267:
589:
560:
370:
211:
206:
Can't find any references for this, or any mentions in the external link(s). Seems to be a
369:- Work in progress or not, the bottom line is that the term is not notable. It's simply a
320:
189:
568:
564:
532:
490:
444:
316:
247:
615:
215:
452:
448:
374:
243:
188:
Deproded. A non notable neologism. "external" links aren't really persuasive either
640:
572:
106:
456:
342:
251:
250:
for this neologism, and I doubt that we will be able to find any. --
319:
back them up. If you could produce those it would be appreciated.
657:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
502:
498:
494:
437:
378:
102:
98:
94:
164:
178:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
667:). No further edits should be made to this page.
596:. Rankiri took the words right out of my mouth.
436:However, the difference is that the article on
634:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
8:
628:
632:: This debate has been included in the
531:The article also seems to be largely
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
567:. Urban Dictionary is not a
214:(per the article itself). -
684:
649:00:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
624:18:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
606:17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
581:12:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
550:11:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
524:11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
480:18:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
427:08:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
398:08:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
355:08:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
329:08:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
304:08:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
275:08:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
224:08:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
198:08:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
55:12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
660:Please do not modify it.
280:Defense against deletion
32:Please do not modify it.
242:that irreparably fails
474:Questions or Comments?
269:Questions or Comments?
69:AL (actually laughing)
61:AL (actually laughing)
602:(let's talk about it)
497:, in the same way as
212:isn't in common usage
505:- there is far more
317:reliable sources to
246:. I can't find any
44:The result was
651:
637:
604:
478:
430:
413:comment added by
365:
351:
307:
290:comment added by
273:
234:
675:
662:
638:
600:
547:
542:
521:
516:
475:
470:
468:
465:
462:
459:
445:reliable sources
429:
407:
394:
388:
359:
352:
349:
345:
306:
284:
270:
265:
263:
260:
257:
254:
248:reliable sources
228:
183:
182:
168:
120:
110:
92:
34:
683:
682:
678:
677:
676:
674:
673:
672:
671:
665:deletion review
658:
569:reliable source
545:
537:
519:
511:
473:
466:
463:
460:
457:
408:
392:
386:
348:
343:
285:
268:
261:
258:
255:
252:
125:
116:
83:
67:
64:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
681:
679:
670:
669:
653:
652:
626:
608:
583:
554:
553:
552:
484:
483:
482:
400:
357:
334:
333:
332:
331:
309:
308:
277:
226:
186:
185:
122:
118:AfD statistics
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
680:
668:
666:
661:
655:
654:
650:
646:
642:
635:
631:
627:
625:
621:
617:
612:
609:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
551:
548:
543:
541:
534:
530:
527:
526:
525:
522:
517:
515:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
481:
476:
469:
454:
453:verifiability
450:
446:
443:in fact have
442:
439:
435:
432:
431:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
404:
401:
399:
396:
395:
390:
389:
380:
376:
372:
368:
363:
362:edit conflict
358:
356:
353:
346:
339:
336:
335:
330:
326:
322:
318:
313:
312:
311:
310:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
281:
278:
276:
271:
264:
249:
245:
244:verifiability
241:
237:
232:
231:edit conflict
227:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
181:
177:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
131:
128:
127:Find sources:
123:
119:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
659:
656:
629:
610:
597:
585:
556:
546:said Zebedee
539:
528:
520:said Zebedee
513:
486:
440:
433:
402:
383:
382:
375:unverifiable
366:
337:
279:
240:WP:NEOLOGISM
235:
208:made up word
203:
187:
175:
169:
161:
154:
148:
142:
136:
126:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
586:Snow delete
409:—Preceding
286:—Preceding
152:free images
529:Additional
449:notability
321:Shadowjams
190:Shadowjams
51:Black Kite
641:• Gene93k
616:Mandsford
594:WP:MADEUP
371:neologism
507:WP:UNDUE
423:contribs
415:Altox012
411:unsigned
300:contribs
292:Altox012
288:unsigned
210:, which
113:View log
573:Rankiri
434:Comment
403:Sources
387:Ledgend
338:Delete:
216:Kingpin
158:WP refs
146:scholar
86:protect
81:history
611:Delete
598:Erpert
590:WP:NEO
561:WP:NEO
557:Delete
487:Delete
367:Delete
236:Delete
204:Delete
130:Google
90:delete
46:delete
565:WP:OR
538:Boing
533:WP:OR
512:Boing
491:WP:RS
393:Gamer
238:as a
173:JSTOR
134:books
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
645:talk
630:Note
620:talk
592:and
588:per
577:talk
571:. —
503:ROFL
501:and
499:LMAO
451:and
441:does
419:talk
325:talk
296:talk
220:talk
194:talk
166:FENS
140:news
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
639:--
495:LOL
438:LOL
379:LOL
350:Dom
344:Big
180:TWL
115:•
111:– (
647:)
636:.
622:)
579:)
563:,
559:.
467:ik
458:Sh
425:)
421:•
381:.
327:)
302:)
298:•
262:ik
253:Sh
222:)
196:)
160:)
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
48:.
643:(
618:(
575:(
540:!
514:!
477:)
471:(
464:r
461:i
417:(
384:—
364:)
360:(
323:(
294:(
272:)
266:(
259:r
256:i
233:)
229:(
218:(
192:(
184:)
176:·
170:·
162:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
132:(
124:(
121:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.