Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK railfan jargon (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK railfan jargon[edit]

Trivia, violates several points of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (especially the points about it not being a dictionary, manual, and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters! Things such of this have no reason for even existing on Wikipedia since they are a barmy list of slang. This is not the forum for lists of slang and jargon. It should be expunged. Bolly Nickers (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. railfan jargon Gwernol 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the article is generally properly sourced. It is not trivia. The article has been kept twice before at AfD and has been improved since then. The nominating editor's bias is shown by the use of schoolyard taunts and personal attacks the he feels are necessary when stating his case. Gwernol 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is exactly the kind of thing that should not be on Wikipedia. There is no need for any sort of slang list of any kind. This no doubt will have all the foamers defending it to the hilt. --Timmins Dave 08 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult other editors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly well-sourced and discriminate list. Seems to be a bad faith nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the terms listed are also used in the rail industry and not just by railfans. Every entry in the list has at least one footnote pointing to a reliable source and terms are now vetted for accuracy and verifiability before they are included in this list. Slambo (Speak) 20:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contributing editors have gone out of their way to source independent references for the terms listed in the article, many of which are widely used in railway periodicals and other publications. As previously mentioned, unsourced entries have been removed. At the time of the previous AfD the list was still largely unreferenced. EdJogg (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-sourced, well-defined list. And agree with 10lbHammer that the nominator severely needs to moderate himself. The languge used is neither necessary nor appropriate. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced, encyclopedic, and objectively defined material KleenupKrew (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and encyclopedic. The nominator is cautioned against ill-founded nominations. Edison (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Whilst the article at the beginning of the year was quite poor, with the majority of entries unreferenced, a lot of editors put in a lot of work to provide verifiable references for entries that have been kept. Unreferenced entries have been moved to a sub-page so that they can be restored when a verifiable reference can be found. Note that the nominator has not notified any editor of the proposed deletion either. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Mjroots - if this nomination had come at the beginning of the year I would have supported it as it was a complete mess, comprising of a few good facts mixed with original research, things made up and general fancruft. However, some determined editors have cleaned up this list to the state it is now, and whilst not perfect it is well referenced, and in a state to be used by non-enthusiasts to expolain terms that they may not be familiar with. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept as it has been extensively overhauled recently by editors who have meticulously sourced references and removed the fannish references, unverifiable slang and plain nonsense (against some opposition). A few months ago i would be 100% behind removing it but now i believe it comes up to wikipedia standards as seen in many other articles. Cheers Deckchair (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We found this article by hitting the "random article" button and were not suprised that this is something that someone feels should be deleted. This is a list of trivia and is not encyclopedic. Just because something is well sourced does not mean that it is a list of trivia and/or pure fancruft. The slang or jargon terms can be mentioned on the respective pages, provided they are encyclopedic worthy enough to have their own page. This may be an ill-founded nomination created out of spite, but it should be overlooked since this is something that does violate several of the What Wikipedia is not tenets. --Souvigny (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination based on a misinterpretation of WP:NOT. Yes, slang does belong on Wikipedia, as long as it is sourced.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." This article is a usage or jargon guide, therefore it should be deleted. Case closed. --Kitsap Beach (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:Contents/List of glossaries, which links to a number of other similar articles, is an index to information on Wikipedia. Glossaries of this type are encyclopedic as entry points to further information. Slambo (Speak) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists. This article is a glossary; it is a "page [that] presents definitions for specialized terms in a subject area." Slambo (Speak) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kitsap Beach is a suspected sockpuppet of Bolly Nickers, the nominator for the deletion of the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for all of the "keep" reasons expressed above by others. —BMRR (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename "List of UK railroad jargon." I think that the nominator has gotten confused about the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide" policy, which I think was (in spirit, at least) designed to prevent articles on single terms. This article is so well-sourced that it demonstrates that railroad jargon itself is notable. Would the nominator want to muck this article on Glossary of poker terms? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - we don't have railroads in the UK! <g> Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been mooted that a revised name might be appropriate for this series of articles: something along the lines of "Glossary of UK rail-related terminology", which avoids the troublesome terms 'railfan' and 'jargon'. This does assume, of course, that the result of the AfD is 'Keep'. Further discussion regarding suggested names should take place at Talk:List of U.S. railfan jargon#Name change, rather than this AfD page. EdJogg (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I'm still going to express my feelings on the matter. I agree with Kitsap Beach and feel that these sort of jargon guides do not belong in encyclopedias. Does Microsoft Encarta or Encyclopaedia Brittanica include any such guides? I'm rather curious. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there are many thousands of articles found in Wikipedia that would not be found in Britannica. —BMRR (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for all the "keep" reasons stated above. Don't tell me that lists like this aren't encyclopedic. ----DanTD (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, interesting list. As noted, I wouldn't object to seeing the article moved to a name which sidestepped the word "jargon". We have articles on lists of Internet memes and I think this list is similarly appropriate. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of trivia and jargon. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Well referenced, and by the sounds of the nom it is done as a hate thign against us railfans. In the event of deletion a copy will be railfan_jargon here for everyone's delectation! BG 7 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adequately sourced, and the rather venomous language in the nom ("This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters!") was completely unnecessary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.