Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston slang (second nomination)


 * 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 transwiki'd to Wiktionary, then deleted. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Boston slang

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Already nominated once before, with no consensus. I outlined some of my concerns with the article earlier this month on the talk page. The entire article is original research and completely lacks any citations (it's been tagged as unreferenced since December 2005), and full of useless entries like "Wake - Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield". Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information also apply here, I think. I don't even want to transwiki this, simply because it's so full of OR and, I suspect, inaccurate. --Miskwito 23:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom --Miskwito 23:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep and cleanup some of these look unreferenceable and should be removed. however, as a whole the concept of the page appears to be acceptable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Enough is legitimate. Fg2 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Need this page I needed some reference to a term I heard and google pointed me here. While here I did some editing, as there were some glaring errors and omissions.  You want to delete an srticle because you "suspect" it is inacurate? NO way.Sulldogga
 * I want to delete it because it's unreferenced and almost entirely original research, both of which are in clear violation of Wikipedia policies. Other people have made good points here about massive cleanup being possibly better than outright deletion (I don't know that I agree, simply because I think this type of thing is likely to always have a lot of original research in it by its nature, and because Wikipedia is not a dictionary). But their arguments address the problem of lack of citations and original research fairly well, while I don't really see a clear argument against deletion from you. --Miskwito 02:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would seem this article is more appropriate for wiktionary than the current wiki, however I want to know what your source is for its supposed inaccuracy. From what I see (and I haven't reviewed it all), it is relatively accurate with a bit of cleanup needed. sulldogga
 * Delete - Aside from being unreferenced original research, it also is simply a dictionary disguised as an article. -- Whpq 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments for keeping given in the prev. AfD remain valid. Many of the objections raised there, which were mainly related to the inclusion or exclusion of certain entries, seem to have been addressed. The collection of these on a page is more than a dictdef. DGG 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lack of references. Possibly original research. Fails WP:A. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OR, plus it's dictionary content. --Dariusk 03:48, 5 April 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.