Deletion of List of common emoticons

Comment: to Emoticon, leaving the possiblity to split back off to a list once these "common" emoticons get |sourced. It's not an unreasonable thing for which to search
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: and limit the entries to those that have been reported in reliable sources, like ''Time'' and ''Newsweek'' (both of which had articles on emoticons a decade ago). The new name would eliminate the question of the subjective "common"; requiring a stringent standard of citation for inclusion of the appropriate emoticons would reduce (if not eliminate)  and  considerations
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: without "common" and only include emoticons that are cited in a reliable source (that way the content will not fall into |things that are made up in one day category).  A few of the references DHowell put in look like they could be incorporated now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Plenty of sources for this notable expression of Internet culture.  See any random "how to use the Internet" style book for a start.  Reasonable subject for a list.  If it is currently unsourced, the solution is to add sources, not to delete it, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELETION)

Comment: to List of emoticons - "common" is largely subjective and difficult to define, source what can be sourced, remove what can't be, |merge to Emoticon if that turns out to be the best solution in terms of article |size and style. Basically what
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Merging (WP:MERGE||WP:SIZE)

Comment: per JayHenry, Dhowell, et al.; or, if needed, '''move''', per the above discussion.  Lots of this |can be sourced easily.  Just |try a little harder
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:BOLD)