Deletion of MMORPG terms and acronyms 2

Comment: The article fails  - Wikipedia is not a dictionary or glossary of terms.   It also fails  (original research), as most of it is unreferenced or referenced from |unreliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOR||WP:RS)

Comment: If you're concerned about sources, pick up a copy of ''Massively Multiplayer Games for Dummies'' or a similar books or a site like http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/basics/glossary.html WOW's glossary.  This subject is not something that counts as inherently related to  though I'm sure people will try to add entries to the list based on that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: I hope some of you realise that this is a debate and not a ballot. There's little point in agreeing with another editor when points have been made to refute them. If you're not going to contribute any new perspective, don't stack numbers because debates are decided based on arguments and not how many people agree. The article fulfills referencing requirements. |Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a debate point considering we have numerous articles in :Category:Glossaries, and if  comes into play, we'll need to put all of those up for deletion. Is that the course of action we will take
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:INN)

Comment: violates  - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Plus, this page is dripping in original research - where, for example, are you going to find a reliable source that states that "1HPP" means "one-handed poisened weapon"? A lot of people obviously put a lot of effort into this article and I appreciate that, but if something breaks the first pillar, it has to go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: While I lean towards this being a violation of |WP:Not a dictionary and , the fact that there are plenty of similar articles under :Category: Glossaries makes its existence at least justifiable. On the other hand, many of the terms are not unique to MMORPGs, so if it remains, it requires a ''lot'' of cleanup in order for it to be a true and accurate list of terms as well as conforming with 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: If any of these terms and abbreviations came up as individual articles they would be wiped out without a second thought as either  or  or . I do not see how it makes any diffeence if they are all collected together; the same categories still apply. And I don't see how it's useful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:DICDEF||WP:OR)

Comment: Could use some cleanup, but has encyclopedic value and should be verifiable (as other editors have pointed out). There is plenty of precedent for glossaries (which I would also vote to keep). I don't believe they run afoul of , which concerns ''articles'' about single words. &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICT)

Comment: while cleaning up to retain only those terms for which  reliable sources can be shown
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Looks like a large collection of fanbase-specific glossary terms to me, which could be considered under the #INDISCRIMINATE|indiscriminate information policies. I might reconsider my position should a good keep reasoning be given, with accompanying |reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RS)

Comment: I don't see how  applies here. Not for things...was written up to prevent people from adding novel, perhaps good but mostly junk, topics that would fall under  to wikipedia. Many of these acronyms are used by many in the MMORPG subculture. Adding sources is an issue that needs to be addressed in the article, but I'm sure many of the well known terms could be sourced (e.g. PvP, PK, HP, EXP, etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT||WP:OR)

Comment: I don't see how Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day applies here. Neither does the game guide argument - a game guide would say ''how'' to gold-farm and get "phat lewt", all this does is say ''what'' they are. As brighterorange points out,  applies to articles which exist just to define a single term. Sure, some of the terms in this list should be removed, but there's a big difference between removing terms and deleting the entire list. Several people have pointed out similar glossaries on other subjects. I'm not simply saying "keep this bad article because that bad article exists". What I'm saying is that, the way it is now, glossaries are allowed on Wikipedia. If we want to have a discussion about removing ''all'' glossaries from Wikipedia, we can have that discussion. But I don't like this idea of nominating some glossaries for deletion under "Wikipedia is not a glossary", then turning a blind eye to the others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)