Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of jive talk


 * 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. Ged UK  12:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Glossary of jive talk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:DICTIONARY, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." This is slang. Per the article, "an amalgam of Negro-slang from Harlem and the argots of drug addicts and the pettier sort of criminals, with occasional additions from the Broadway gossip columns and the high school campus." Toddst1 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Glossaries are well-established content at Wikipedia. For numerous examples, see category:glossaries which has so many entries that there are sub-categories such as category:glossaries of mathematics and category:glossaries of science.  We even have a Wikipedia glossary to list terms like AfD and !vote.  WP:DICDEF recognises and accepts such content, saying "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field...".  The topic is notable and well-sourced and so it's just a matter of development and improvement in accordance with our deletion and editing policies: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." "Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented". Warden (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an "encyclopedic glossar[y] on the jargon of an industry or field" which would be fine. It's a list of slang terms. Toddst1 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The jazz culture of the early 20th century is a field in that sense. Other comparable glossaries are glossary of graffiti, glossary of the American trucking industry, glossary of pinball terms, glossaries of works of popular culture, &c.  This topic has been the subject of significant academic attention - see The Vernacular of the Jazz World, for example.  Dismissing it as merely slang is therefore just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Warden (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So to sum up this keep, WP:OSE, policy is irrelevant. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE states "a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain ... these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent ...". Warden (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This isn't really a glossary, it's a mini-dictionary. Other glossaries are lists of technical terms and definitions of 'things' while this is just a list of slang word definitions. Several of these are already in Wiktionary; Those that are not and can be sourced should be transwiki'd there, and then I would support deletion of this article. --Michig (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The OED tells us that a glossary is "a list with explanations of abstruse, antiquated, dialectal, or technical terms". So it doesn't just have to be technical - the point is that the terms are obscure.  The policy WP:DICTIONARY specifically allows for such glossaries and we have lots of them.  We also have lots of coverage of slang in this and other ways — see the huge category:Military slang and jargon or slang terms for money, for example. Warden (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we get the point you made above. OSE. Toddst1 (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Like all the other glossaries, see Category:Glossaries, this is useful for understanding common slang terms. If someone was looking into slang of that culture and error, its useful to have all the terms in one place.   D r e a m Focus  14:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV - this topic is extremely well-documented in reliable sources. I have no problem with short glossaries (much less than 400 words). Bearian (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearian and per WP:DICTIONARY. As it says in our policy: "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature..." This useful and interesting article meets this condition. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2013 (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.