Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Junkies Lingo

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. Straight from the policy: "Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides." If the terms are notable, say the show has notable terms- don't painstakingly define and list them.-Wafulz 18:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Junkies Lingo[edit]

Page is a list of definitions for slang used on a radio show. The primary issue is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but there are also issues of notability and verifiability. Chunky Rice 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Honestly, as the page creator I really don't care what happens here one way or the other. The only reason I created it is because it was overcoming The Junkies article. The only defense that I can see for this article is that a new listener would have a great deal of difficulty understanding what these guys are talking about and may find this article helpful. Angrymansr 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a worthy cause, but this isn't the place for it. - Richfife 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See this Google News Archive for reliable sources such as the Washington Times saying "the Junkies are known for their wacky lingo", a Washington Post interview in which the Junkies talk about their lingo, and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune mentioning that the website "(www.junkiesradio.com) also has a glossary of Junkies' lingo". Although the website no longer seems to have that page, there is an archive of it (note that, due to problems in the archiving process, the text appears invisible unless you select it). I've never listened to their show, but I can see how this list can be informative to someone researching it. And while Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we certainly do have glossaries of terms of specialized use. DHowell 00:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a few references to the article. DHowell 01:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This entry is definitely helpful and since the show replies heavily on wikipedia this would seem the appropriate avenue for the definition and more encyclopedia like entries explaining the terminology.-Mike {{unsigned|76.111.66.130} — 76.111.66.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The proper response to trivia overwhelming an article is to delete the trivia, not dump it into a separate article. Otto4711 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. On the surface your argument sounds fine but there's three points here:

1. Their dialect is different from the average person which merits it just as worthy as this article:Klingon Language. This article just needs some back story to make it look less dictionary-like.

2. This is not a form of trivia. Trivia is random unorganized facts about a broad topic, this is neither random or unorganized, concerning one specific item (language usage).

3. Why are lists (List_of_download_managers) ok, but attach usage to the list and it's all of the sudden forbidden? In that case, let's just delete the definition portion!!!

Angrymansr 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Klingon language is a developed encyclopedic article on the creation of a relatively fully-functioning artificial language. This article is a glossary of slang like the recently-deleted List of Firefly slang words. 2) This is trivia. It is all trivia about the same thing, but it is trivia nonetheless. 3) The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not justify the existence of this article. Otto4711 13:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does the fact that other stuff was deleted justify the deletion of this article. I've cited sources, and these sources can be used to improve the article further. Perhaps if you found a few reliable sources about the use of slang on Firefly, you could use them to create an article on Firefly slang, since I notice you were the sole voice to keep that list. DHowell 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing doesn't change the fact that this article is strictly against policy. The only way to keep it would be if it also met WP:LIST, which it does not. -Chunky Rice 14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of the more-used entries to the main article fuzzy510 22:27, 20 June 2007 (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.