Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian and New Zealand punting 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 wasNo consensus WP:DICT is at best ambiguous it does say "Wikipedia is not a usage guide" yet with in that section is does say But see also jargon file; articles, even extremely in-depth articles, on hacker culture are very welcome, and insofar as guides to some particularly essential piece of hacker slang is necessary to understand those articles, of course articles on that slang would be great to have.. Transwiki to Wiktionary isnt complete taking some terms at random; overs, lay, dish licker(s) have nothing to clarify its useage within articles here; Lacks ticker while not covered ticker has the meaning heart and lack has a defination, a reasonably educated person could be expect to comprehend the term; Firm does state shortening of odds.

With the discussion below these two are the basis for consideration, knowing the above its unreasonable to delete out of hand at the moment. Additionally Cuddy Wifter has indicate that he'll source the article and clean it up to comply with wikipedia policies. I've added cleanup sourcing tags and copy to wiktionary tags.Gnangarra 07:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian and New Zealand punting glossary

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Glossaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This content has been transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Australian and New Zealand punting glossary. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The Manual of Style, at Lists (stand-alone lists), expressly recognizes glossaries as a valid type of Wikipedia list article. Criteria for speedy deletion allows for deletion of glossaries under certain conditions, not generally.  Nomination does not support its claim that "Glossaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if the content has already been transwiki'd, Delete this page. Useight 01:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that glossaries of useful terms in various topics may well be encyclopedic. However, this is probably better suited to Wiktionary so if it has been transwikied delete. Capitalistroadster 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But a glossary is not a dictionary. Please look at Contents pages (header bar), it links directly to List of glossaries. Then you might look at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7. If you are deleting one glossary you have a long way to go.Garrie 03:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But a glossary is not a dictionary. Please look at Contents pages (header bar), it links directly to List of glossaries. Then you might look at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7. If you are deleting one glossary you have a long way to go.Garrie 03:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless a compelling reason to keep them is found, all the glossaries should be transferred to Wiktionary and deleted from here. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment A referrendum on glossaries shouldn't be held here, necessarily. However, one problem I have with this article, and most of the glossary articles, in that they are unreferenced and appear likely to stay that way. I'm going to go Neutral until I can think about this a bit more. On a side note, I think replacing "punting" with "horse racing" in the title would be an improvement, as not every term is related to betting, and it's less slangy also.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary-- Sef rin gle Talk 06:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. Oysterguitarist 06:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, while I may not agree with the policy, 'not a dictionary' has not been shown to apply to glossaries. (See List of glossaries for examples). Perhaps a new discussion should be started at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and this discussion tabled until a decision can be made on glossaries as a whole.  Citi Cat   ♫ 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete —  In addition to Wikipedia not being a dictonary, the article has not sources. Unless some can be found, transfer the page to wiktonary and delete the article here. *Cremepuff  222*  21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT - I think a bunch of terms and their definitions is no different than having a page for each of them. Corpx 02:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 *  Delete but absolutely not for the same reasons stated by those above. (Strong keep, see majority author's statement of intent to source) The reason I think this should be deleted I'll get to, but first, as this appears to be a test case by the nominator, let me provide a defense of the glossary, in general, as an encyclopedic animal.
 * Dictionaries are not glossaries. They have different structures, different uses and provide different content and meaning. Glossaries provide an interrelated list a set of definitions for a subject, and by doing so provide general knowledge and context for that subject as a whole. The fact that a single definition removed from that indivisible context would be "just a dictionary definition," fails to contextualize. A dictionary does not provide the cross-referencing utility that these glossaries do, and even if, when transwikied, glossaries were to remain in the form they do here, that form is more the province of an encyclopedia than a dictionary, despite the fact that both here and there we have expanded the institutional roles to some degree.
 * Wiktionary entries do not generally (and are not likely in the future) to link to Wikipedia articles for further information, for clarity, for context, etc. Thus we lose much of the nesting, cross-linking, information exploration effect that glossaries provide here.
 * There are multiple glossaries which are used across many articles to define terms of art/jargon simply by linking to the glossary section. While it is possible to link to Wiktionary entries, doing so is less intuitive than linking to glossary entries, requires more piping, requires a person to find each Wiktionary entry separately—isolating glossaries from the groups of articles they form a useful part is just less user friendly and will reduce their utility.
 * Glossary entries may contain material beyond that of a simple definition entry which is the typical role of a Wiktionary entry, but which material is right at home here, and the likelihood of that more-encyclopedic-type-material being added after removal to Wiktionary probably hovers somewhere around zero.
 * Glossary entries are sometimes appropriately expandable into articles, but currently reside in a glossary awaiting expansion, red-linked or not. The path from Wiktionary entry to article here is very attenuated—probably not even likely, whereas the entry here is a shiny red button.
 * All that having been said, there is only one reason I see to delete this particular glossary and it is a compelling one in my view—no sourcing whatever. Being entirely unverified is a deal breaker for me. My !vote automatically changes to strong keep in the unlikely event someone starts a campaign of sourcing this article.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary has appendices designed just for this sort of thing. Wiktionary:Appendix:Contents states that appendices are "most often used for glossaries of words with a common topic, but can also be used for grammatical or other lexicographical information" (emphasis mine).


 * We use wikilinking on this project to familiarize users with new terms. I looked through the "What links here" for this particular glossary, and maybe it's not representative of the typical glossary, but it doesn't seem to do much for the encyclopedia. It's linked to in a total of 5 articles. Half the links to it are just "See also" links, and the function of other half wouldn't be seriously impaired if they were changed to point to Wiktionary.


 * If the consensus is to keep glossaries in Wikipedia, that would be OK, but it looks to me like they're better suited for Wiktionary. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at, for example List of professional wrestling slang which has incoming links to more than 200 articles, or Glossary of wine terms with about 250 incoming links and in which most of the entries link to articles in their own right, with quite a number of unlinked entries appearing as good fodder for future articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Glossary of wine terms is only linked to in so many articles because it appears in the "See also" section of Template:Wines. You're welcome to make stub articles for any of the encyclopedic wrestling terms. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki if necessary. Possibly a useful resource, but not suitable for an encyclopædia.  Lankiveil 08:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Transwiki and then delete as WP is not a dictionnary/glossary or annex.--JForget 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Glossaries are not dictionaries. Citation to WP:DICT here is a complete misunderstanding of what it says and means. Agree with Fuhghettaboutit that it needs sourcing (and that nominator is trying to push a "test case"), and would go further that the entries need to be more explanatory to have sufficient encyclopedic value, but those are not issued raised by this AfD. 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 basis is to attack all articles that contain glossary materials, and even more signficantly to attack WP:SUMMARY as invalid. If it weren't for the fact that the article has some problems unrelated to WP:DICT this would be a "strong keep". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment in support of 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;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused. What part of wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion criteria does this fail? —Remember the dot (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole thing. A glossary is not a noun, verb, or any other item listed there as satisfying the inclusion criteria; in the Wikipedia context, a glossary is an article that explores, in an encyclopedic manner, the notable terminology relating to a subject, and how those terms inter-relate. That Wikitionary has started, with its rather recent "Appendix:" namespace, to also include glossaries of a sort is of no relevance to the questions raised here, since Wiktionary is not Wikipedia, and has different standards and methods of verifiability/attribution.  One might as well say, "this should be deleted because JoesBlog.com has glossaries already." Wikipedia generally does not care what Wiktionary is doing, or vice versa, with the exception that simple dicdefs on Wikipedia are relocated to Wiktionary, and if a dicdef over there starts taking on too much of an encyclopedic article character in its "Usage notes" section, it is recommended that the commentary content there be moved to the relevant WP article.  And that's it.  Removal of all glossaries from WP will do incalculable harm to numerous articles that depend up on them (especially given that direct links in prose to Wiktionary in lieu of links to WP articles is strongly discouraged, and distrusted due to the lax sourcing standards at Wiktionary). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am the creator of this article. From looking at its history, I would think it was probably the first article I created for Wikipedia. I accept the criticism that the article has no references. I can only plead an initial enthusiasm for the Wikipedia concept, and a complete ignorance of the details of policy and guidelines. To Citicat, Fuhghettaboutit and SMcCandlish I can assure you that I will rectify the lack of references, as my time permits, over the next few weeks. The reasons why glossaries are a legitimate part of Wikipedia have been stated by others, but this recent decision on baseball jargon is just another to add to the list of decisions to keep glossaries. The policy of stand-alone lists (point 5) would also suggest that glossaries are legitimate. I wrote this article for Wikipedia as my small contribution to the sum total of human knowledge. I did not write it so some member of the Wikipolice could consign it to an appendage of Wickionary. Cuddy Wifter 07:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: It would appear from the nominator's comments here about glossaries, and the nominators contributions on 18 July, where 8 glossaries (all beginning with the letter A) were PROD tagged in the space of 5 minutes, that this Afd was not made "in good faith" but is the start of a campaign to remove all glossaries from Wikipedia. If the nominator and the people who support the removal of glossaries from Wikipedia wish to make that case, could I suggest that you change the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy so that it unambiguously states "Wikipedia is not a glossary" otherwise you are just wasting the time of people who create genuine content for Wikipedia. Cuddy Wifter 07:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interwiki to Wikitionary, as none of this is source, and thus fails verifiability policy here. Giggy  UCP 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Move across to Wiktionary - Fails WP:NOT but is not in itself a bad article and would be a valuable contribution to that resource.. Zivko85 05:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the advantages of contributing late is you get to read the earlier discussion, which explains quite clearly that glossaries are not at all among the things covered by NOT. Im glad to see the distinction, which I hadn't realised. It makes sense. the discussion also seems to show the willingness to source it. DGG (talk) 07:24, 25 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.