Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goth slang

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (6d/4k/2dis) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goth slang

[edit]

POV; NOT dict 1, 2 & 3

  • Keep: I think slang terms fit in to wikipedia nicely. If someone searches for something they don't know what is, they at least get an awnser. But anyway: Don't delete, this article just need some work.
  • Delete: per talk page, also noting Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, lists of definitions, nor a slang guide. I will concede, however, that some of the terms should perhaps have pages of their own (subject to verifiability and NPOV) or be described directly in the Goth article, which is the only one pointing to the nominee. --Kgf0 23:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
addendum delete also for original research per principle anonymous contributer on Talk: "It is almost completely original research, drawn from thread topics on Goth Forums, where goths added their opinions." --Kgf0 19:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what you list are articles about slang, and thus they belong, even if they include examples - the articles have meat beyond their lists. Drug slang and Hip hop slang are double redirects and should be fixed. Of the ones that are not articles, but are simply lists of slang terms, none have been up more than 7 months, and only Boston slang and Singapore gay terminology have been up more than 3 months - this leads me to believe that they simply have not yet been AfD'd. The latter I will AfD myself, since it wouldn't belong in an English language encyclopedia even if there was no list-of-slang policy. Of the remainder, Catholic Street slang (which, if kept, should be moved to Catholic street slang unless it is the slang used on Catholic Street), Baseball slang, Military slang, and Professional wrestling slang are the ones with short article histories that could conceivably be cleaned up enough to salvage as articles; there should be numerous sources on each of the last three, and a potential sociological angle on the first (remains to be seen if that can be done without violating WP:NOR. Canadian slang, Gay slang, Sexual slang (redir to List of sexual slang), and Body parts slang are all less than 2 months old, and should not live to see 3.
In short, for these reasons, I don't think your examples support your argument, especially given your stated position on list cruft. The existence of violations of policy does not negate the policy, any more than the continued existence of criminality negates the law. This seems particularly applicable in this case given the probability that the "police" have simply not caught wind of the "crimes" in question yet. For this list, IMHO, even if the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues can be cleaned (assuming anyone is even interested in doing the work) it will still fail WP:V and WP:NOT. --Kgf0 23:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the article now has two main sources for the material listed at the bottom.
Deathlibrarian 09:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't published sources, those are chat logs; it's still original research ("Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources") and in violation of WP:NOT regardless how many other pages are also in violation. Also, the other slang pages that are lists rather than articles will be AfD'd in good time. See London slang for an example of what an article about slang should look like (and note that the example terms have Wictionary entries of their own). --Kgf0 21:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very interesting, it's information afterall. --Mateusc 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article could be improved, certainly: NPOV, it's a bit too Melbourne-centric at the moment (the reference to the Megabar is just too obscure), a better introductory paragraph explaining the derisory nature of many terms, better references (there are plenty of books which could be used - see main Goth article, forum logs just won't do). Needs a lot of work, and healthy debate like this. It is against official Wikipedia policy unfortunately. Canley 01:06, 13 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goth_slang&oldid=1137886078"