Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of US railfan jargon

List of US railfan jargon

Delete Not encylopedic, dictionary definitions WestchesterGuy 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a List of UK railfan jargon Schizombie 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Incidentially, they seem to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. Schizombie 22:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic and indiscriminate. Unreferenced. No context. -- Krash (Talk) 02:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A lack of references is not grounds for deletion. Several current Featured Articles lack references. Although their featured status is now being reexamined, they are not being considered for deletion because of it. Slambo (Speak) 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete good, focused slang lists. Delightfully encyclopedic. -- JJay 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I realize that this is our nom's first day at wikipedia, but he should have indicated that this list and the British jargon page were spun out after extensive discussion from Railfan. -- JJay 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a widespread and notable hobby (Railfan). Monkeyman 02:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. While Railfan is notable, WP:WINAD applies to this particular article. --Karnesky 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reasons stated in the British railfan jargon debate ("Pages like this have wide and longstanding precedent; see Computer jargon (created September 30 2001), List of baseball jargon (March 11 2003), List of lumberjack jargon (November 4 2003), Mathematical jargon (October 5 2004) and Poker jargon (April 18 2001) for other examples of this type of article. If this article is deleted for the reasons stated in the nomination, then all of these need to be deleted for the same reason."). Slambo (Speak) 11:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of marijuana slang terms, though. --Karnesky 16:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not relevant because this is not a dictionary definition.Choalbaton 13:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refer especially to "WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" where lists of definitions, including jargon, are included in dict defs. Unless someone can defend putting this on List of glossaries, it doesn't belong in WP & is better suited for Wiktionary. --Karnesky 16:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencylopedic, unsourced. Perhaps merging with railfan ariticle would be better? TVXPert 15:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, just read the damn guidelines. I am also voting against the UK version, too. FunkyChicken! 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]