Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British regional nicknames


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

List of British regional nicknames

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An IMO irredeemably poor article. No references. Packed full of unsourced insults of doubtful provenance. The very best thing to do would be to pull this list down and build a new one from scratch. In the meantime, I do not think we should persist in peddling a list of misinformation. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Why does this article sound familiar?  Ah, yes.  Articles for deletion/Janner (old).  &#9786;  You can source that one to Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and the glossary of Cyril Tawney's Traditional song & verse of the Royal Navy.  So that's the first one done in minutes.  I'm sure if you looked for sources you could do several of the others, and be well on the way to rewriting the page from scratch in the way that you want, in well under an hour.  AFD isn't an on-demand article rewriting service, and the administrator's deletion tool is not a way to get content written in the way that one thinks it ought to be.  More succinctly: AFD is not Cleanup.  Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has not been cleaned up in the last couple of years, judging by the age of the tags. I'm buggered if I'm going to waste my time on it. So what do we do? Leave a pile of steaming crap sitting on the encyclopaedia indefinitely because AFD is not Cleanup? By the article's lights, Aberdonians are sheep shaggers and porridge shaggers, and people from Nottingham are scabs. There is, by 2010, a basic expectation that controversial article should be referenced, and if not, should not be tolerated. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not been cleaned up precisely because of people doing as you are doing here. You are part and cause of the very problem you are decrying.  You want the article improved?  Pull out your editing tool and edit out the content that you think to be erroneous, and to put in sources for the content that you can source.  Be bold, for goodness sake.  You've made four edits so far in relation to this AFD discussion, three to nominate and one further.  With four edits, you could have made four improvements to the article that you want edited and improved.  Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, are we suddenly on a deadline to perfect all articles??Edison (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh no, Edison. We're on a deadline to remove unsourced and offensive crap from wikipedia. Care to join with that? I've now removed a great deal of the said unsourced offensive content from the article. This AfD can be speedy closed as keep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to wiktionary as a Wiktionary appendix. This is a list of nouns (places) and synonyms for those places. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I think it can be a good article if it can get cleaned up, theres no sense in losing all the information and starting again. As for the claim that there are no sources, well that's not strictly true, the one about County Londonderry is sourced. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Problems persist because nobody has broken their backs yet, once lists and articles are brought to heel they're easier to maintain and treated with a little more care. Let's hit it now while we're here.. Someoneanother 09:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to wiktionary or redirect to List of regional nicknames. ~Asarlaí 10:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G. The AfD nomination does not specify any legitimate reasons for deletion and falsely claims that there are no sources: there are two refs to reliable sources and several wikilinks to support other entries. None of the article's content is to be found at List of regional nicknames (which deals mostly with broader geographical areas), so a redirect is inappropriate. Jimmy Pitt   talk  10:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I just don't see any value in knowing this stuff. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, how lucky you are to be above such trivia. However others may (and indeed do) appreciate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lucky me, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue cleanup (deleting unsourced entries, sourcing the rest...) Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Its a poorly sourced collection of tat, and not notable enough for rescue, nicknames can be used on appropriate articles where they can be properly reviewed.  If it stays 80% needs to be wiped out anyway -- Snowded  TALK  16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this most certainly can be rescued by better sourcing and editing. Sadly, AfD is for rescue when editors are too lazy to fix it themselves. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There might be a policy-based reason to delete this, but only if we take List of regional nicknames, Lists of disparaging terms for people et. al. out with it too and "clean up" to make PC-pedia. Otherwise this is just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no justification. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of these are easily referenced, as in which includes 8 of them, besides the refs presently used in the article.. Deletion is not a substitute for editing out any unsourceable terms. Edison (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If you don't know the proper term, its good to have it all in list, easier to find that way.  D r e a m Focus  22:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   spout 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary per 76.66.200.95.   Snotty Wong   spout 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The matter is, of course, notable. For example, see Language and region.  Our editing policy requires that we improve this and this is not done by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable enough and with sources, although could use more.  He  iro  04:05, 2 October 2010 (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.