Deletion of Pwn (3rd nomination)

Comment: anything useful to Leet#Owned and pwned, and leave a redirect as a valid |alternative to deletion.  Given there is a subsection in the leet article about this word, a redirect makes sense, and if there is a part that is useful but not enough to sustain an article, that’s the right place to put it
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: to Leet#Owned and pwned per above. Clear  issue here. No need for a stand-alone article. &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: to the most relevant article (internet slang maybe?), Wikipedia is . Maybe there are relevant reliable sources about the history of the term, but I'm having a hard time finding those
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDICTIONARY)

Comment: WP:DICDEF is commonly misuderstood as meaning that we should delete something.  It doesn't as the main point of that policy is that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by."  This is harder than it sounds because editors are commonly too literal-minded to accept different words as synonyms.  So, we have separate articles for cacography; catachresis; eye dialect; sensational spelling; &c. even though these are closely related concepts.  Pwn has a similar meaning to words like domination; exultation;humiliation;jeer;victory;&c. but if we were to try merging it then there will be complaints about sourcing and synthesis.  It's best kept separate while the worst case would be merger into the glossary of video game terms.  It is our |policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so we need not stint ourselves
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)