Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ha ha only serious

I created it, from Jargon File, but now I'm not sure if it should be here. Mikkalai 18:38, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: I agree. There's nothing wrong with the way it's written, but dictionary definitions, and, in particular, ones from Internet discourse, are an impossible goal. This phrase is common enough that it might go in Internet slang, or at least earn a redirect to Internet slang. Geogre 02:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It is not Internet slang. Mikkalai 02:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki: Informative article; better suited to Wikibooks than here. Davodd 16:09, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Dictdef, but a decent one (although it makes it seem much more hacker-specific than it is—it's used reasonably widely outside of hacker circles, and I suspect the "mutation from an abbreviation" etymology is spurious) — Gwalla | Talk 07:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary and delete, unfortunately. I like the article a lot. -Seth Mahoney 07:05, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
One big fat delete. It's a shameless lift from any version of the Jargon File you care to name. Kinitawowi 13:05, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Jargon File is in the public domain. Mikkalai 15:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - And Wikipedia is not a mirror. Kinitawowi 15:56, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
    - And what does this mean? (hint: edit-edit-edit) Mikkalai 21:40, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - What it's intended to mean is that there are umpteen complete versions of the Jargon File kicking around online already, and it isn't necessary (or appropriate) for Wikipedia to form a carbon copy. As GWalla says below, this can't expand beyond a copy of the Jargon File entry; therefore it's unencyclopaedic mirroring, therefore delete. Kinitawowi 10:38, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
    - comment: Wikipedia has several articles that started as Jargon File entries. This isn't capable of expanding beyond a dictdef though. — Gwalla | Talk 20:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)