Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owned Compilation

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. MBisanz ^talk 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owned Compilation

WP:Neologism, WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The author even seems confused as to what the term is. Is it "owned compilation" or "compilation owned"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Poor quality too. -- samj _in ^out 03:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a clear definition of a well established internet phenomenon. Googling "Owned Compilation" got me 73,000 hits. It proves the term is commonly used, and for the definition the article lists it in. Some examples would probably be nice, although unless they already have articles of their own, it'd be deleted as spam. Dream Focus 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~to Pwned Compilation zomg roflpmp~~ (sorry) to Owned; it could have a subsection there, and this has a benefit for anyone using "Owned Compilation" as a search term without knowing what it means; it will expose them to the wider use of ~~aspects of total ownage~~ the adjective. pablo_hablo. 19:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a clear delete. There are no reliable sources on the article and it's a clear neologism. The redirects aren't appropriate--it's not in widespread enough use to justify those redirects. If there are sources we're unaware of they should be added. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTE, WP:RS, etc...--Sloane (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (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.