Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British slang


 * 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   keep. Rewritten during the AfD. Issues of redirect, merging, etc. are beyond scope in this particular AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

British slang

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article appears similar to an already existing, and more comprehensive other article.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —bwmcmaste (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This guide might be useful: "'Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well.'" bwmcmaste (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC) : Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  I 'mperator 16:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete & Redirect: This article has numerous issues, and already contains a number of subjects already discussed in the article: List of British words not widely used in the United States. If anything of use can be salvaged from this article: It should be placed on the aforementioned article and a redirect should be provided to the more conversant of the two. This article appears to be contrary to policy: "'Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. See 'Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook' below for more information. For a wiki that is a collection of guidebooks, visit our sister project Wikibooks. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of a language should be transwikied there.'"
 * Keep this is a valid topic for an encyclopedia. There are lots of other slang article on WP. This article is not a usage guide, it's a list of slang words similar to the many articles in Category:Slang. Nominator does not specify any reason for deletion. This article needs cleanup, not deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It would appear the article fits "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney or Leet) are desirable." I dont agree with the redirect proposed; the article suggested is probably not the best example nor is it near enough one and the same. However yes the article does need quite some work doing to it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There may be potential for an encyclopedic article here, but not the one currently written, because this is too close to being a dictionary. (Is there any way of working this into Wikitionary?) If the article stays, I'd convert it to a stub until someone wants to write an article based on secondary sources written about British slang. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary deals with this in a very simple manner. Since every word is its own article, a list of words is simply a category.  See wikt:Category:Slang and the other related categories. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, although inclined to Keep. The article requires considerable work but the topic itself is valid for inclusion. The slang of one English-speaking country should not simply be viewed as a subset of words from that country, slang or otherwise, which happen not to be spoken in one the many other English-speaking countries of the world. Thus the suggested redirect is not appropriate. The current article is just a list of definitions of words, and entirely bereft of citations at that. There is no definition or description of the topic, let alone other types of information but there is scope for such material to be written. A descriptive stub, with word definitions removed until context and citations can be provided would seem preferable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete in that it has never attempted to cite to a reliable source. It appears that this is mostly a list of terms that would be considered offensive in the U.K., and there is a merit to an article that let's the reader know what not to say.  Hence, if there is a source that will confirm that a Yank should not talk about "going on a bender" or say "you've got a lot of spunk!" or "Hi, my name's Burke... why is everybody laughing?" I'd support keeping a list of words to avoid.  Mandsford (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete and redirect Although the article in it's current state is too weak to stand, I would be perfectly fine if another editor took the effort to expand it into a reasonable, encyclopedic article. Again, per WP:NOT, specifically:
 * Usage guides or slang and idiom guides....Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not [desirable]. See "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" below for more information. For a wiki that is a collection of guidebooks, visit our sister project Wikibooks. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of a language should be transwikied there. Cheers.  I 'mperator 20:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need for deletion in order to redirect. Indeed, one could simply revert back to the redirect that this article was in 2005.  Why delete edit history that is not only useful, but is the very redirect that you want? Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Changing to Redirect Cheers.  I 'mperator 12:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. As it stands, it is too unfocused, and likely with perpetual problems. "Slang" is far too broad for the list in its present form, seems more appropriate as a "List of British vulgarisms", but even if narrowed to vulgarisms, are they "British", or are they really London vulgarisms only (perhaps Cockney only?), or from some other areas/cities also.  Can it ever meet WP:V, how many of these words are WP:MADEUP?, or in very limited circulation?, or because this language segment is constantly evolving rapidly, fading (in and) out of general use?  Power.corrupts (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Several issues. First - can it be encyclopedic? Likely yes (thus the Keep). Is it unfocussed? Yes, but that is not in itself a sufficient casue for deletion. It needs specific standards for the words it includes, and likely a standard of source for any words in it. It is currently heavy on the "vulgarisms" side, but I suspect that is true of most slang usages through history.  Is it the same as "uncommon words"? Not really, though I am sure there is overlap.  Could it use a brief description about what "slang" is? Likely so, but that also is not a sufficient reason for deletion.  Collect (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and either stubify (but this may be too difficult without adding content) or redirect to British English until someone is ready to write a good article. (FYI English slang, which this mostly is, redirects to slang.) The current content needs to be booted to Wiktionary, but this is absolutely an encyclopedic topic - far more than List of British words not widely used in the United States is (but then anything with List in the title basically gets a free pass in that department). And frankly given the parochialism involved, redirecting this article to that list would be borderline offensive. Rd232 talk 11:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete . The content is nothing more than a glossary, which Wikipedia is not.  The topic is notable, but the content here is not appropriate to the title and there's no need to maintain a connection.  Better to turn it into a redlink and let someone start an encyclopedia article on the topic.  Powers T 12:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as a stub without the glossary. Powers T 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An article on British slang would be useful; a random grab-bag of words, less so. If kept, it needs to be moved to List of British slang terms or the like; otherwise, it should be redirect to British English with no prejudice to someone creating an article about slang in the future... Shimgray | talk | 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is nothing more than a list of words and meanings - ie a (rather poor) dictionary. I agree with other comments that an article about British slang could make a good encyclopaedic entry, but this is not it. I42 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect. With flagrant disregard for WP:OCE, I'm going to point out that American slang, Canadian slang, Australian slang, and New Zealand slang are redirects.  Wikipedia shouldn't cover British English slang as a separate subject for the same reason that it shouldn't cover any of those: it's a moving target, and any scholarly source is out of date by the time it hits print.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit summary agrees with you. This one does not.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to British English - The topic of "British slang" deserves a section in British English. Of course, it shouldn't be a list of words, it should be a description of slang, including Cockney rhyming slang etc, as used in the UK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So revert back to the very first revision of the article, in essence? &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think you need to be adding that long list over to the British English page. It seems valid enough for reasons mentioned by others already, to keep it.  Perhaps rename it to List of British Slang.  Is it just a List of British words not widely used in the United States or does it include what is considered slang in that country?  Slang is different than regular words.  I think it best to keep it as its own separate article.    D r e a m Focus  13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't want a dictionary of slang, though. Wiktionary provides that function (and a lot more besides) for us.  It already has categories of slang words in various languages, and appendices.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Few, if anyone, above has actually argued in favour of keeping the list of words.  The point to consider is whether an encyclopaedia article about this slang can be written, and whether any of the edit history here (which includes several of the different redirects being proposed) is worth retaining.  For an encyclopaedia article about a slang, look at Digger slang.  See how it cross-links both to individual Wiktionary articles and to a Wiktionary appendix for the dictionary of slang function, and focuses instead upon the history, evolution, development, and influence of the slang.  Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be an argument that it's possible to write an encyclopaedic article about a specific category of slang (e.g. Cockney rhyming slang or 18th century cant). If so, I wouldn't disagree with it; but I think British slang is probably at too high a level of abstraction to make an article of value.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rhyming slang already has an article, as do Polari, and Thieves' cant. There may be others. "British slang" won't work; there is an enormous variety of it, varying between regions, and if it is a list (as this is) there will be confusion about what is British (I notice 5-Oh as supposed British slang for the police!!) and what is slang rather than dialect or other regional varieties of English. Perhaps this page should be a disambiguation page listing and linking varieties of British slang?  pablo hablo. 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more a discussion of the difference between an article about a slang and a list of slang words, and why renaming this to a list and starting another article, as suggested, is not the best of ideas. Consider the case of .  At the time that it was nominated for deletion, it was exceedingly similar to how this article looks now (revision), and was nominated for deletion for exactly the same reasons.  It was rescued during the AFD discussion.  It might be of interest to see what the primary rescuer of that article wrote here, at this article, in this edit summary. Attempts have been made to start an article here.  Witness this for example.  But they never garnered much more encyclopaedic content than that one sentence, before being restructured from a U.S.-centric point-of-view, upon which a dictionary almost imediately began to grow.  Eventually the only encyclopaedic content that was even attempted was lost by a poor vandalism reversion and to cleanup efforts.  An expert was called for, but none came before this AFD nomination.  This edit summary said it all.  This is an example of how not to write an encyclopaedia article. As the edit summaries said, a complete rewrite is needed, and until an article is actually written, with some encyclopaedic content, we are best off reverting back to the redirects that were in place right at the start, either to British English or London slang.  In other words:  The first attempt to write an article here was clobbered in its infancy, and wasn't even good then.  What we have now is not an article, and not even stub material.  Revert to the original redirects and start again.  Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (or rewrite as disambig, see comments above ↑ ) after transferring this list to Wiktionary. I agree that an article about British slang would be an interesting and valuable addition to the encyclopedia (as would articles about other regional slangs and varieties of English), but this is just an unsourced list and does not belong here.  pablo hablo. 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree that this belongs in wiktionary if anywhere. A British slang article needs to be at the meta level not a list of words.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP now that I've given this subject what it deserves: an encyclopedic treatment (or at least a start at it), complete with a bunch of references and sources which can be used to further expand the article. If consensus determines that the list of words is inappropriate it should be transwikied to Wiktionary, but the article should now be kept here. DHowell (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In view of the above, Keep the new encyclopedic content and Transwiki the dictionary definitions, preferably with a category link from this page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as above, with knobs on; definitely Keep now the article has some worthy content. Good work. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2009 (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.