Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK railfan jargon (2nd 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 of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

List of UK railfan jargon
Delete Not encylopedic, dictionary definitions WestchesterGuy 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User accidentally transcluded debate from first nomination. Fixing now. Fixed. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It's better to have one list of dicdefs than many stubs about each dicdef -- Ruby  02:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. This was debated last month and closed as Keep. Article spun out from Railfan after discussion. The nom who is new to wikipedia must provide a better justification to reopen this debate. -- JJay 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as previously kept article with no new rationale for deletion. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. WP:WINAD.  I'm somewhat hesitant due to the rather recent debate, but there were few contributors in that debate & I think both this and the US list should go. If not transwikied, I still think it should be deleted. --Karnesky 09:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep My vote reasoning remains unchanged ("Pages like this have wide and longstanding precedent; see Computer jargon (created September 30 2001), List of baseball jargon (March 11 2003), List of lumberjack jargon (November 4 2003), Mathematical jargon (October 5 2004) and Poker jargon (April 18 2001) for other examples of this type of article. If this article is deleted for the reasons stated in the nomination, then all of these need to be deleted for the same reason.").  Since I don't see afd nominations for any other jargon pages, I don't see a valid reason to remove this page.  Slambo (Speak)  11:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Comment I am going to call for those pages deletion, as they don't belong. Will this make you happy? Frühstücksdienst 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If they are deleted, then I will change my vote, but not until the policy is evenly enforced. Slambo (Speak)  13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See also the current Articles for deletion/List of marijuana slang terms, though. --Karnesky 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Slambo. Batmanand 11:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong 12:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencylopedic, unsourced. Perhaps merging with railfan ariticle would be better? TVXPert 15:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I guess, since I know many of these phrases from my trainspotting days. Guy 19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Have any of you read Wikipedia guidelines?  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BrianGCrawfordMA 21:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information, but if you want to know why trainspotters talk excitedly about spamcans and hoovers, this is where you will find out. Guy 22:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * keepJcuk 23:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Slambo. Turnstep 00:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, just read the damn guidelines. I am also voting against the US version, too. FunkyChicken! 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a dictionary entry. Calsicol 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Refer especially to "WP:WINAD" and "WP:NOT" where lists of definitions, including jargon, are included in dict defs. Unless someone can defend putting this on List of glossaries, it doesn't belong in WP & is better suited for Wiktionary. --Karnesky 02:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you going to nominate list of internet slang or shall I? Guy 11:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just citing policy, which notes that a dictionary entry is more than just a single dict def. Let's handle one AfD at a time! --Karnesky 13:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete violates article guidlines, and per nomination. NYTVGuy 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless, needless, and seems to go against the policies of the Wikipeida. ShyLou 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * - Note: User's fourth edit. -- JJay 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as unverifiable, unencyclopedic and indiscriminate. -- Krash (Talk) 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because not sourced. Keep with sources. Pavel Vozenilek 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A lack of sources is not sufficient grounds for deletion. There are several Featured Articles that lack sources, even (although their featured status is coming under review, they are not being considered for deletion because of it). Slambo (Speak)  12:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The non-existence of reliable sources would be grounds for deletion (WP:NOT a publisher of first instance) but oin this case there is plenty of evidence of currency of these terms from other sources, even though they are not cited. Terms like "hoover" are common currency in railway modelling and railfan magazines; these are not available online, but "teh Intarweb" is not the world, somethign we often forget when we can't find somethign on Google.  Part of the point of Wikipedia, for me, is to bring stuff which you'd otherwise have to visit the library to find, onto the web.  In this case the article is substantially more useful than things like the lists of hacker jargon, since there is already an authoritative source of hacker jargon at the Jargon Files, and all we're doing is mirroring it and sometimes adding unverified cruft.  Some of this information is hard to find. But then, I'm a reformed trainspotter from before the days of Google, when you had to be inducted into the brotherhood before you knew what the f**k they were talking about... Just zis Guy you know? 13:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Most if not all of the problems with this article can be rectified with a little TLC.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are several webpages dotted around the internet with slices of jargon, some with just one or two entries some with more. There is no central respository. As Slambo said, other lists of jargon are accepted, even when we are duplicating effort. This and the US railfan jargon article were recently spun out from the main railfan article as the two lists were starting to take over. There is also no point in merging the two lists as rail terminology is probably the area where British and American English are the most different. Thryduulf 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because there are some fan sites on the internet doesn't mean it belongs in an encylopedia, especially when people say it doesn't fit its guidelines. JAA01A 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They say that, but I'm not convinced they are right. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per guideline violations. WashingtonWillie 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thryduulf. Useful glossary. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't care how useful it is or how many other web sites have lists, since it violates established Wikipedia policy it should be removed as soon as possible. ConeyCyclone 18:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per my earlier votes on Marijuana & US railfan. Thanks Slambo for pointing out the consistency in keeping this list. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and others. Toasthaven2 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If the article violates the Wikipedia guidelines why shouldn't it be deleted? Those who want to keep it must want to kill the Wikipedia by subverting its rules. That is just wrong! WestchesterGuy 21:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason I haven't AFD'd the precedents I mention in my vote reason is to avoid making a WP:POINT. If this article is deleted, the others should be too for the same reason. Slambo (Speak)  21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think your vote should count. It seems not to make any sense, as you seem to think that just because other things are, this should be. It needs to go just like the others! Frühstücksdienst 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User's second edit since August 2005. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It goes against the rules so bye-bye. And all the other jargon lists should meet the same fate. Frühstücksdienst 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, we actually agree on part of this debate - pages that violate WP policy should be deleted. My vote reasoning points out established precedents for articles of this type.  If they are deleted as well and the policy is evenly enforced (it doesn't look likely with the vote counts there right now), I will then change my vote.  Yes, I am a railfan, but that in itself is not the reason for my keep vote.  Slambo (Speak)  14:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Precedents need to be changed and the articles need to be deleted. You have a vested interest as you seem to be a member of the Trains WikiProject, but the article should be deleted since it goes against policy, as all the other ones like it. Frühstücksdienst 14:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly the reason I mentioned them in my vote comment. If they are deleted and the policy is evenly enforced, then I will change my vote.  Slambo (Speak)  14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per JJay. Kappa 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per BrianGCrawfordMA SquirrelKabob 20:55, 23 February 2006 (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.