Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 AD glossary


 * 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. — Kurykh  23:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

2000 AD glossary

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Violation of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, article content moved to wikt:Transwiki:2000 AD glossary. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The Manual of Style, at Lists (stand-alone lists), expressly recognizes glossaries as a valid type of Wikipedia list article. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not much I can add here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there's a reason we have Wiktionary. Spellcast 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as explained on the talk page this fails the transwiki the criteria for inclusion and should never have been transwikied. (Emperor 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I didn't know that; thanks for pointing that out. Even so, I'm not sure that this is something that belongs in Wikipedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there is possibly no ideal solution (I flagged this quite a while ago and nothing has come up) - it doesn't fit at Wiktionary (and will/should probably be deleted eventually when someone goes through the backlog) and there probably isn't a suitable wikia wiki to transwiki it to (as may have been the solution at some point in the future), so we'll just see where how things cards fall. (Emperor 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.  -- Artw 20:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - seems like a pretty clear NOT violation. Where not already covered there the various bits of it should probably be merged back into the articles from which they came. Artw 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a directory for terms mentioned in a tv show - Also based on WP:OR Corpx 02:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverified through reliable sources, original research. This should NOT be deleted on the basis that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as glossaries are not dictionaries, nor are their material more suited for a dictionary. Please see here for a more expanded rationale why glossaries in general should not be transwikied and deleted under WP:NOT.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thing is it isn't WP:OR/WP:V as there are well established lists and if anyone had flagged that angle it would have been possible to find more - I'd imagine there are lists in the Annuals as well as the various RPG sourcebooks. (Emperor 04:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment I no longer believe in sacrificing the encyclopedia on the altar of hypothetical sourcing. It's nice but there has to be some point, necessarily arbitrary but certainly some decent amount of time after creation and development, when we draw a line in the sand and say, add sources (which is the article proponent's burden) or this will be deleted. People forget this is an encyclopedia, and a fundemantal aspect of an encyclopedia is that it is a tertiary source that synthesizes other sources. I look at all unsourced content, no matter how useful appearing and well written, as inherently untrustworthy and unencyclopedic; a placeholder for real content.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply comment I agree but there is no hypothetical sourcing here - there is already a source, so claims that it is WP:OR/WP:V don't apply. Obviously we can't wait forever for someone to provide sources but one was added early on in the life of this entry . My statement is that if this was the issue and people wanted more sources then it should have been flagged first and others could be provided. (Emperor 13:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Sur-reply comment That sole external link you point to (which I'll treat as if it was properly cited as a reference) is to an unreliable source. It doesn't even serve to verify the material, much less show its notability as we use that word here. The website is commercial, doesn't appear to be independent of the subject, shows no evidence of having an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight, and so on. Furthermore the underlying material is very derivative. This is not a glossary of terms of art/jargon of a general subject matter (as most glossaries are), but of made up words in one fictional universe. Such minutia detail treatment is highly specialized material often inappropriate for a general encyclopedia. Still, if it was published in multiple reliable sources we'd have a lot more to discuss—and there's the rub—minutia from fictional universes is very rarely the subject of multiple reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Cleary violating the Wikipedia is not a glossary/annex/dictionary criteria.--JForget 14:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep : Glossaries are not dictionaries. Citation to WP:DICT here is a complete misunderstanding of what WP:DICT says and means, making many of the comments here moot. Another way of looking at this: Many enc. articles (here and in paper encs.) provide glossaries, and we would not go around AfD'ing articles just because they contain glossaries.  The only reason a page like the one at issue here exists as a separate glossary page is that it as it becomes too long for the main article, it is split out into a separate article, just like any other growing article section does. To attack Wikipedia glossaries on nominator's terribly faulty "test case" basis is to attack all articles that contain glossary materials, and even more signficantly to attack WP:SUMMARY as invalid. Furthermore in this specific case, the article fails the transwiki criteria to begin with, it does in fact have at least one cited source, and the entries are in many cases encyclopedic, providing background and history that would not be found in any dictionary entry.—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)  !vote changed to Delete for reasons other than nominator's: Now that this is (finally!) focusing on policy-cognizant issues as raised by Fuhghettaboutit, et al., I'm confident swinging to the delete side, so long as the point is not lost that I think the original nomination's rationale was utter bunk. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment in support of strong keep: To quote from WP:DICT: "Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote." Glossaries are "articles...about...concepts".  Glossaries are not articles about "a word or an idiomatic phrase", and fail the wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used...)"  Glossaries (when properly written) clearly do the latter, not the former (any that does the former will usually be an obvious WP:NOR and/or WP:NPOV violation).  I could go on, but it seems unnecessary to point out every single way in which WP:DICT simply does not apply here. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it is interesting to see another similar glossary up for deletion here - they vote for deletion but put up a well argued case explaining why the calls to WP:DICT are invalid. They vote for deletion in the end because of the lack of WP:V and if it had it he'd vote keep. This has a sorce and if that was the issue I know I can find more (relying on fictional languages and invented terms means you have to print glossaries for new readers to catch up on). Soooo this has a source (and I can find more - although they will be pretty much like the first one), does not fit the criteria for being transwikied in the first place and glossaries aren't dictionaries - I am unsure what this is violating. (Emperor 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Reply comment: Indeed. What is happening here is that User:Remember the dot brought up the issue at the Village Pump (here), and got only one supporting voice, but decided to go on an AfD spree anyway, despite lack of any community buy-in for the idea. As for the two glossaries (that I know of) presently up at AfD, they might well be deletable on some other grounds, but I would prefer to see these current AfDs end with "keep" or "no consensus" and for them to be AfD'd a second time, raising actually policy-cognizant problems such as WP:V.  User:Remember the dot is trying, clearly, to use these AfDs as a precendent-setter for the idea that any glossary can be zapped, and I remain concerned that if either of these AfDs close as "delete" for reasons other than the one that R.t.d. raised, that they'll be seen as precendential regardless, and despite the overwhelming yawn of unethusiasm for this "kill the glossaries" campaign at the Village Pump. I hope that the closing admins will note carefully that the vast majority of the delete !vote are "me too" parroting of the nominator, whose entire rationale has been substantively questioned, and that those questions remain unaddressed. The potential for damage here is quite severe, as some of the glossaries on Wikipedia are massively used as terminology link targets in non-list article prose. I doubt that is the case with either of the two up for AfD right now, but they were obviously selected carefully for their weaknesses. If they are to be deleted it should be in second AfDs that address those WP-policy-recognized weakenesses, not the novel and already disproven theory that Wikipedia cannot have any glossaries or that glossaries are automatically non-encyclopedic.  A quick read of the 2000 AD glossary shows that it is not dictionarian at all, but provides a lot of encyclopedically-written information. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 07:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment yes I checked their contribs after they tagged it and they'd PRODed a number of glossaries (Glossary of alternative medicine, List of glossaries, Australian and New Zealand punting glossary, Automotive design terminology, Glossary of terms in Ayurveda, Glossary of arithmetic and Diophantine geometry, Architectural glossary and Glossary of American football between 18:02 and 18:07 on 16 July. As they'd clear not bothered reading the talk page to check the issues (as there comments above show as well) I de-PRODed it (as it appears everyone has done with all the others) and Remember the dot relisted this and the punting one for AfD. As you say this might be suitable for deletion but none of the grounds stated above fit and it is a sign of something being up that the justifactions wander all over the place from "its been transwikied" to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" (which as you say don't apply) to "Its original research" (which being sourced and further sourcable doesn't apply either). it'd be a shame if this was deleted (and formed a precedent for deleting other glossaries) on shaky grounds. (Emperor 12:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete per nom. Slavlin 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As noted above, glossaries do not necessarily fall under WP:NOT. They must conform with WP:V, though, and this article does not. The content appears to come straight from this site, which raises copyright questions, and certainly does not constitute an independent or reliable source, as also noted above. Sandstein 18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources, and most likely a copyright violation of the linked website http://www.2000adonline.com/?zone=thrill&page=phrasebook. Observe the copyright notice at www.2000adonline.com, which asserts "Judge Dredd and 2000 AD copyright Rebellion A/S 2004. All Rights Reserved". EdJohnston 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is my understanding this could be transwiki'd to wiktionary, but as a concordance, like this one for A Clockwork Orange. Atropos 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.