Deletion of Pwn (2nd nomination)

Comment: Outside of Leet, there is no notability to the term. 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: see below). As a mere slang neologism, it fails  and  and unquestionably falls under OTDIC and EO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:NOTDIC||WP:NEO)

Comment: Etymology, pronunciation - obviously fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: open to Merge or Move to Wiktionary, but not open to Delete.  Nominator argued "not sourced" but in order to argue deletion, you need to demonstrate "not sourceable".  http://news.cnet.com/2300-7349_3-6220529-2.html, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1659741,00.html?iid=digg_share show that it's certainly |verifiable.  I think a discussion of possibly moving to wiktionary could be fruitful (not sure how I feel about that) but I would not support deleting the material.  Another possibility would be to merge into some page about related slang terms, with the content on "PWN" as a section
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: with Internet slang or '''move to Wiktionary''', considering the lack of sources with which |notability could be established beyond a dictionary definition
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I think it has to be considered that users ''will'' type this into the search box.  It is important for users to see something useful and relevant when they do this.  Whether it's a merge or a pointer to dictionary, or a small dedicated article (which is what I'd prefer), that's debatable.  But just outright deleting it would create a void for an important subject.  As I have demonstrated above, this the use of this word is |verifiable in reliable sources.  That means it belongs ''somewhere'' on wikipedia...thus we should be arguing whether or not to merge.  This deletion discussion, in my opinion, is misguided, and the recommendations to delete should be interpreted as recommendations to merge.  I would rather see this discussion closed as a keep, and then we can discuss whether or not to merge later
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Specific slang words have generally no place in Wikipedia, due to their constantly evolving nature, it's a  nightmare and drawing fire from   and .  The views of Hairhorn, Cazort and DGG reluctantly made me change my mind 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOTDIC||WP:NEO||WP:IAR)

Comment: per  and . No need to merge - the content is already in Wiktionary. There's just not enough reliable secondary sources to include this in an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOTDICT)

Comment: verifiable, contains references; ''(invalid): , , , 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JUSTAVOTE||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IMPORTANT)

Comment: Word doesn't haven't sufficient significance for article. There's nothing to say about it. No-one know the origin of the word, so it'll be rife with speculation or |original research. People will want to know what it means if they look for it, a job which Wikitionary has been assigned. I can't really see the argument at the moment for a full article here, though I am welcome to here ideas
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: poor references, not verifiable; ''(invalid): , ignoring , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JNN||WP:POTENTIAL||WP:JUSTAVOTE)