Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. railfan jargon


 * 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

List of U.S. railfan jargon
Trivia, violates several points of What Wikipedia is not (especially the points about it not being a dictionary, manual, and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters! Things such of this have no reason for even existing on Wikipedia since they are a barmy list of slang. This is not the forum for lists of slang and jargon. It should be expunged. Bolly Nickers (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note This is the 2nd nomination of this article. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note see also Articles for deletion/List of UK railfan jargon (3rd nomination) Gwernol 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects notified: WikiProject UK Railways, WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep the article is generally properly sourced. It is not trivia. The article has been kept once before at AfD and has been improved since then. The nominating editor's bias is shown by the use of schoolyard taunts and personal attacks the he feels are necessary when stating his case. Gwernol 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, this article is not a manual - it doesn't tell anyone how to do anything - nor is it a dictionary entry - it doesn't define the term "list of US railfan jargon" - nor is it an indiscriminate list of information - the sources are used to define what is included and there are well-defined criteria for inclusion. There is no policy basis for this nomination. Gwernol 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article generally is referenced, and verification issues can be addressed as was done with List of UK railfan jargon, bad fa—ith nomination. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep IMHO, this is a bad-faith nom. J.d ela noy gabs adds  20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete This is exactly the kind of thing that should not be on Wikipedia. There is no need for any sort of slang list of any kind. This no doubt will have all the foamers defending it to the hilt. --Timmins Dave 08 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need to insult other editors with derogatory terms like "foamers". Please keep your arguments civil and base your rationale on policy rather than your personal animosities. Thanks, Gwernol 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Fairly well-sourced and discriminate list. Seems to be a bad faith nom. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even though the page title is "List of U.S. railfan jargon", a large portion of the terms used in this list are used in the rail industry press. The references list at the end of the article includes Trains Magazine (which regularly features stories and advertisements intended for rail industry professionals), GE Transportation Systems (note 58 refers to  at GE's website), Railway Life (the official employee journal of the former Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railroad), Bridge Engineering (published by John Wiley and Sons), National Railway Equipment Company (note 57 refers to  at NREC's website) as well as the lexicographer's journal American Speech.  There are numerous terms with references found dating back as far as 1916, and with an even more thorough search, I could probably find a large number of other reliable sources for these and many more terms.  Slambo (Speak)  20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a well-sourced, well-defined list. I'd also suggest that the nominator consider moderating his tone in future noms: there's no need for uncivil language. B figura  (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, well sourced, encyclopedic, and objectively defined material KleenupKrew (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourced and encyclopedic. The nominator is cautioned against additional bad-faith nominations, which this and the UK one appear to be. Edison (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, for all of the "keep" reasons expressed above by others. I would also add that the majority of these terms are used by professional railroaders as well as railroad enthusiasts. —BMRR (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article generally well sourced, any unsourced entries can be dealt with as per List of UK railfan jargon, bad faith nomination. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Well sourced article and researched. Bad faith nomination Dex1337 (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete We found the List of UK railfan jargon article by hitting the "random article" button and were not suprised that this is something that someone feels should be deleted and we also found that the American version is also up for deletion. both are lists of trivia and are not encyclopedic. Just because something is well sourced does not mean that it is a list of trivia and/or pure fancruft. The slang or jargon terms can be mentioned on the respective pages, provided they are encyclopedic worthy enough to have their own page. This may be an ill-founded nomination created out of spite, but it should be overlooked since this is something that does violate several of the What Wikipedia is not tenets. --Souvigny (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because terms are used by railfans doesn't mean that they aren't used in the rail industry. The professional railroaders I know personally use the same terms in their work environments on a daily basis. Slambo (Speak)  15:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if that is that case, then if the term is important enough, it should be listed in the article about the subject. This list and the other are prime examples of What Wikipedia is not! --76.160.223.252 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just it. I've heard all of them used by professional railroaders, and they are listed on the individual articles (just to pick a few at random, see ALCO RSD-15 for Alligator, Flashing rear-end device for FRED, and BNSF Railway for pumpkin for example).  Glossaries on Wikipedia have long-standing and wide ranging precedents in a large number of specialization areas; see Category:Glossaries for a number of other examples of this type of article.  As this article's content relates only to terms that are used when discussing the rail transport industry in the United States, it is not an indiscriminate list.  Slambo (Speak)  17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at the guidelines and I honestly don't see how this list violates any of them. Maybe I'm missing something...?  —BMRR (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." This article is a usage or jargon guide, therefore it should be deleted. Case closed. --Kitsap Beach (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But it also says, "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects or types of slang ... are desirable." (Emphasis added.) The editor who nominated this article for deletion specifically used slang as a reason why the article should be deleted, which would seem to contradict Wikipedia's guidelines on the subject. —BMRR (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Portal:Contents/List of glossaries, which links to a number of other similar articles, is an index to information on Wikipedia. Glossaries of this type are encyclopedic as entry points to further information. Slambo (Speak)  17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Lists. This article is a glossary; it is a "page [that] presents definitions for specialized terms in a subject area." Slambo (Speak)  18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Kitsap Beach is a suspected sockpuppet of the Nominator for deletion of the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename "List of US railroad jargon." I think that the nominator has gotten confused about the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide" policy, which I think was (in spirit, at least) designed to prevent articles on single terms. This article is so well-sourced that it demonstrates that railroad jargon itself is notable. Would the nominator want this article on Diner lingo 86ed? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It has already been mooted that a revised name might be appropriate for this series of articles: something along the lines of "Glossary of North American rail-related terminology", which avoids the troublesome terms 'railfan' and 'jargon'. This does assume, of course, that the result of the AfD is 'Keep'. Further discussion regarding suggested names should take place at Talk:List of U.S. railfan jargon, rather than this AfD page. EdJogg (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep for the same reasons as List of UK railfan jargon. DanTD (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep this is vital information to spread around and Wikipedia is meant to be a wealth of knowledge. This would belong in an encyclopedia, thus it deserves to be in a Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.14.0 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete List of trivia and jargon. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-sourced list. Unnecessary hostile language in the AfD nom doesn't help.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:21, 27 April 2008 (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.