Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of US 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 of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix 13:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

List of US railfan jargon
Delete Not encylopedic, dictionary definitions WestchesterGuy 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note for closing Admin. Seven delete votes are from users that have made no contribution to wikipedia since July 2005 (User:ConeyCyclone, User:WashingtonWillie, User:UncleFloyd) and August 2005 (User:SquirrelKabob, User:Toasthaven2, User:FunkyChicken!, User:Frühstücksdienst) Three more are from very new users (User:Talain, User:ShyLou, User:JER53Y). -- JJay 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's also a List of UK railfan jargon Schizombie 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Incidentially, they seem to be part of WikiProject Trains. Schizombie 22:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as unencyclopedic and indiscriminate. Unreferenced. No context. -- Krash (Talk) 02:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A lack of references is not grounds for deletion. Several current Featured Articles lack references. Although their featured status is now being reexamined, they are not being considered for deletion because of it. Slambo (Speak)  11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason to delete good, focused slang lists. Delightfully encyclopedic. -- JJay 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I realize that this is our nom's first day at wikipedia, but he should have indicated that this list and the British jargon page were spun out after extensive discussion from Railfan. -- JJay 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a widespread and notable hobby (Railfan).  [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman 02:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. While Railfan is notable, WP:WINAD applies to this particular article. If not transwikied, please consider this a delete vote. --Karnesky 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. For reasons stated in the British railfan jargon debate ("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."). Slambo (Speak)  11:44, 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)  13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we handle one AfD at a time? --Karnesky 05:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See also the current Articles for deletion/List of marijuana slang terms, though. --Karnesky 16:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And Articles for deletion/Cherokee Slang Carlossuarez46 01:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not relevant because this is not a dictionary definition.Choalbaton 13:45, 19 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 16:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Unencylopedic, unsourced. Perhaps merging with railfan ariticle would be better? TVXPert 15:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, just read the damn guidelines. I am also voting against the UK version, too. FunkyChicken! 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nomination and others. NYTVGuy 13:16, 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 fifth edit -- JJay 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a slang/jargon dictionary, or a list of words. Stifle 11:39, 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) 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful explanation of concepts in rail culture. Kappa 17:05, 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 UK 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 18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per guideline violations. WashingtonWillie 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like nearly every other list of slang we keep. Carlossuarez46 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful glossary. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:44, 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 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and others. Toasthaven2 19:23, 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 21:50, 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)  21:55, 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 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: user's first edit since August 2005. Slambo (Speak) 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I started editing under another name in August 2005 to avoid deletion wars, since there are some crazy people (like you) out there and I took a break. So sue me. You really seem to like this article even though it violates at least two Wikipedia policies, most likely as you seem to be a foamer. Frühstücksdienst 14:24, 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 03:06, 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)
 * replied on Articles for deletion/List of UK railfan jargon (2nd nomination). Slambo (Speak) 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per FunkyChicken! SquirrelKabob 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:WINAD makes this seem pretty cut and dry. --Talain 11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WINAD JER53Y 23:33, 25 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.