Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game slang

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 delete. I have counted "transwiki" as "delete" for the purpose of this closure as anyone !voting to transwiki (other than Super Shy Guy Bros.) implicitly does not want the article on Wikipedia. If anyone actually wants the article content for the purpose of a transwiki, feel free to drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game slang

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure what the purpose of this list is. Much of it is a horribly sourced fork of Video_game_culture#Slang_and_terminology, and doesn't even cover exclusive slang. We aren't a dictionary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't believe I am saying Keep as I went expecting garbage figuring this would be as easy delete, but it is actually well sourced and "encyclopedic". I checked, and it isn't a copy paste of the source articles. The only reason I lean keep is that it is basically a "language" and this article sticks to its purpose of quickly explaining what the expressions mean. Taken individually, I would agree that WP:DICDEF applies, but this isn't an AFD about a single term, it is about the LIST of the term. It is notable, sourced, concise, and well organized. It is also a few things that don't matter in an AFD such as useful and informative. Regardless of any narrow reading of other policies, as a group of terms, they notable and worth including. As a group, the concept of the article is valid. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree with much of what Pharmboy said. The article is indeed well-referenced, and well-organized. However, it is a collection of dicdefs, and I'm not entirely convinced that being a list of dictionary definitions rather than a single term excludes it from violating WP:DICDEF. I'm also not sure what the purpose of the article is, and it is only borderline-encyclopedic. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of what pushed me from Neutral to Keep was WP:IAR and WP:NOT#PAPER. I can see it is a borderline case, so I kinda have to lean to keep something useful (yes, I know, not a valid argument in an AFD) when it doesn't absolutely offend the policies here. Besides, I haven't gotten to invoke IAR in forever ;) When all is said and done, I asked myself "is Wikipedia better with this article or without it" (via IAR) and the answer was clearly with. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you're someone doing research on gaming culture, and you don't know what these terms mean, and even what some other terms of the culture are, this is an good base point with references. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of the references are to a forum posting, and thus not reliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list as Wikipedia is not a dictionary or glossary. That said, these terms should be brought into the core gerne/gameplay articles, as all these terms should be redirections to the right place. I understand the intent to keep, but this is a clear case of where we should not go. --MASEM 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
continued notes on the sources: I removed all the forum posts refs, which all linked to the same post. The remaining three (albeit duplicated references): one is a copy of wikipedia, one is a glossary on a parents gaming site and then there are the official ESRB pages. Just because it is sourced doesn't mean it's notable, people. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a repository for fad-slang terms. I have also removed the nationmaster.com references. Nationmaster.com clearly copies its contents from Wikipedia (look at the cleanup template at the top of the referred article) without proper accreditation. Per WP:SPS, these references are not accepted. The links from theocp.com are also questionable. It is a project to present The History of Computing, and in its infancy. In short, it is a work very much in progress and we should be concerned if their current information are accurate (the referred page lists a Reference section without references). Jappalang (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary as an appendix, per what eventually happened to fighting game terms (now here). Nifboy (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a dictionary. Encyclopedia. Meep meep. JBsupreme (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In addition many of the sources are questionable. On the other hand, this is why we have Wiktionary. TallNapoleon (talk)
indifferent: If it bothers you that much, merge it with the video game culture article. I think that's a reasonable compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just it though; if any part of this list was found in an actual article, it would probably be removed on sight per WP:DICDEF. Nifboy (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. We are not a dictionary indeed. RFerreira (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. Makes no effort to distinguish between slang, jargon, and terminology... let alone game industry, game playing, and game design slang. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps another article with a discriminate list of terms would be appropriate, but not this one -- not in this scope. Randomran (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit: How about this: Instead of deleting the whole article, how about we delete the definitions, and leave the words. That way, people ignorant of video game culture will see that these words have definitions exclusive to the gaming community, and then can the definitions up elsewhere. It won't be a dictionary, then, because a dictionary, by definition, has definitions (no pun intended). Can we compromise on that, so that all my hard work doesn't go to waste?Dstebbins (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. It fits better there, and the content will not be lost. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Transwiki - I don't see anything wrong with keeping the article within Wikipedia, but I suppose a transwiki to Wiktionary will do. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 23:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:HARMLESS, which documents other arguments to be avoided during these discussions as well. Cheers, RFerreira (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a specialized lexicon, and is an encyclopedic subsection of Video game or Video game culture. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"AI", "bug", "Crash", and "developer" are hardly specialized lexicon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but "God game", "Sandbox", and "Turn-based strategy" are. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nifboy. This is more Wiktionary-type material. Spellcast (talk) 22:54, 9 October 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.