Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMKV

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 delete. If someone is actually going to transwiki this let me know and I will provide the source Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMKV (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)

This is local Malayalam slang word that was a fad few years ago. This is like having a Wikipedia page for simp. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable term. Kaweendra (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Although I agree, this isn't a very helpful !vote as it doesn't say why you think it's not notable.

• Keep (1) As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not limited to geographical boundaries of native English communities. So OMKV is not "local", and Malayalis use this across the globe. (2) Age of the slang doesn't make a slang obsolete, even leet and pwn are atleast a decade old. OMKV--Praveen:talk 09:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Note, this was the original author of the article.

  The article at Leet isn't even remotely a dictionary definition of a single term though; it has a waaaaay broader scope, and you can't compare this with that. Pwn is probably a more apt comparison, but frankly, I don't think that one should have a separate article either, and as always, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No one has claimed that this being non-English is a factor, so that's a straw man. Your claim of it being used "across the globe" is irrelevant also; any word in a language with global usage would qualify for that too. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Update, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pwn (3rd nomination). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per Praveen and WP:NTEMP. Its malayalam page seems to be notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different Wikipedias can have different inclusion criteria. The fact that there's a page on the Malaylam Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
    • There really is nothing wrong with dragging the same article from a different language to this discussion. I know nothing about Malayalam, but anyone who understands the language can pick some sources in the Malayalam article, put them in the English article and make some improvements. Therefore, that really is (and will be) relevant to this discussion, no matter what. So, don't bother arguing with me. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that the article exists in other languages is not a policy-based argument for keeping the article Spiderone 08:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to be a notable term Spiderone 09:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a meaningful !vote unless you explain why you think it's notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has in-depth mentions in multiple reliable sources as linked in the article Spiderone 16:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which ones? Because all I saw (if reliable at all) were nothing more than reporting on the story about how this one person used it this one time, and/or a definition of the term. This isn't anywhere near what you need to write an article about a word or term. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 12:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Notability for a word or term is a very high bar to reach. See Ain't for one case that meets it. This doesn't get there by a mile. It takes more than a few passing mentions of a slang term that got some news hits because person A called person B a naughty word to establish notability for a word. Sources need to offer in-depth coverage about wide cultural impact of a word, and this doesn't have that.
  When you boil the article down to its basic components, you get Definition, Etymology, and Trivia, which isn't enough for an article (the first two alone per WP:NOTDICT), and it's hard to see how it could be any more than that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is far more than a dictionary entry, I don't see that being a good argument.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This article is more than a dictionary entry as much as your !vote is more than an empty contradiction of the main delete rationale being proposed (i.e., not). This article contains definition, etymology, and a couple quasi-noteworthy usages. That's sufficient for a dictionary, but that doesn't even remotely pass WP:NOTDICT, which is exactly what that policy page explains. Even the person-A-calling-person-B event isn't even remotely notable enough for its own article, let alone for having an article the word as a word. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a fad. I see no recent coverage about the term or any strong indication that it is indeed notable. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could be a brief entry in a list of slang words, not enough at this point for an article all by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary only media coverage is not enough to establish the notability of the subject. The term does not refer to a major political or social campaign. It has just been distributed by a few of internet users and then by an actor/actress as an "expression". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2020 (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.