Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical terms


 * 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 delete. To begin with, the article is unsourced, and even the linked-to articles mostly don't provide an immediate source for the dictionary definition, so WP:NOR alone mandates deletion regardless of consensus. Also, this is a textbook case of WP:WINAD, which is policy. Whether or not it's a slang or a technical dictionary is immaterial, as both are forbidden under WP:WINAD. The "keep" arguments generally amount to "but it is useful", which is a very weak argument, given that WP:NOT covers many types of content that are useful but are still not allowed on Wikipedia, and given that it can continue to be useful if links to it are replaced with links to the transwikied version. Sandstein 06:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical terms

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

"Wikpedia is not a usage or slang guide". Lists of words or dictionary definitions are not appropriate for Wikipedia, but are appropriate for Wiktionary. Per common practice, this word list of topic-related terminology is now transwikied to wikt:Appendix:Aviation, aerospace, and aeronautical terms and is ready to be deleted. Please see precedent at, for example, Articles for deletion/List of surfing terms, Articles for deletion/List of theatre terms, Articles for deletion/Glossary of sexual slurs, etc. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep These are not slang terms - most are technical names with precise meanings, some of which need to be disambiguated from their non-technical context. Many of the terms listed would indeed become stubs or dicdefs if separated out, but that is what makes a page such as this valuable. Many technical articles on aviation refer to multiple (up to a dozen) terms on this page, so for a reader needing to understand their meanings it is far less efficient to have to load multiple pages. What's more, it would seem that a large number of editors do not know how to link to Wikitonary (or never think of doing so) so the result would be a large number of redlinks. I would reconsider if Wikipedia had a mechanism for automatically checking if a redlink was defined in Wiktionary and altering the link if there was a match - or for using httpd-request to load short definitions of dicdef linkwords. dramatic 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * slang: "Language that is unique to a particular profession or subject; jargon." It is slang even according to your own explanation. You don't have to link to dozens of pages, just write Appendix:Aviation, aerospace, and aeronautical terms. Ease of use is not an argument that something is encyclopedic: storing all dictionary definitions and source material and quotations here might be easier, but that's missing the point. This discussion is to determine whether it's encyclopedic, and you haven't offered any rationales that address that point. Dmcdevit·t 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a rather drastic redefinition of slang, which none of my dictionaries agree with - the nearest they get is "the jargon of thieves and disreputable persons" (Chambers) which might describe some profesions :-) But seriously, isn't the explanation of pitch in this article much more relevant and simple for the user than ? If an encyclopedia is not easy to use, people will not use it. dramatic 11:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see above; how is the explanation of pitch at List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical terms better than the one at Appendix:Aviation, aerospace, and aeronautical terms? You'll note they're the exact same, which is the whole point. As for your complaint about pitch, I'm very sick of people that think Wikimedia means the English Wikipedia. Wiktionary is a wiki, sharing Wikimedia's goal for all projects of disseminating knowledge freely. It's insulting to Wiktionary editors that Wikipedians use places like this to demean their project and complain about problems (when you know very well Wikipedia is a work-in-progress too) instead of, say, taking the 20 seconds to copy and paste the definition to pitch. I know you know how to use the edit button. Still, no argument anywhere in this discussion as to why the page is encyclopedic besides saying "it's useful" (WP:USEFUL), and you're setting up a strawman by arguing against slang, when it is very clear the WP:WINAD policy states Wikpedia is not "jargon or usage guide." Dmcdevit·t 16:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Very clearly dictionary definitions that are better suited for wiktionary. Since the information has already been copied over, there is no need for us to host it. It is simple to make this information accessible from wikipedia articles, laziness is not an excuse. WP:NOT a dictionary, period. pschemp | talk 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Aviation, aerospace and aeronautical articles include highly technical jargon, not all of which can be explained in a simple dictionary definition. This article is of great use to a person learning about aviation, aerospace and aeronautical subjects. NetOracle 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that it can't be explained in a "simple dictionary definition"? This exact article has been duplicated at Wiktionary in the Appendix namespace. You can expand it how you see fit; there is no limitation to a "simple" dictionary definition, if there is such a distinction. Please explain why this article is encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Very useful compilation of terms. Individual entries are dictionary definitions; the article is not. Fg2 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as Fg2 said, the article has a whole isn't a straight dictionary definition. Mathmo Talk 16:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Aviation, aerospace, and aeronautical terms on Wiktionary. JackSparrow Ninja 21:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep . We have a pretty extensive coverage of aviation-related topics in Wikipedia, and a number of the terms there are technical in nature. In those situations, a glossary is a very helpful supplement to the articles in order to explain jargon. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely you know that the exact policy wording is "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a jargon or usage guide." Dictionary definitions are only acceptable when explained in the context of encyclopedic prose; that's the whole point of WP:WINAD. It's useful fallacies don't actually address why it is encyclopedic (or why it is less useful on Wiktionary). Dmcdevit·t 16:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On the reason why this is less useful in Wiktionary, I'll refer to the "What links here" link on the article, where you will find numerous redirects. People wondering what "Revenue Passenger Miles" may well look it up on Wikipedia, and as it is now, they will be redirected to a page which explains this to them. As far as I know, cross-project redirects don't work and we therefore lose some functionality by putting it in an other project. Hmm... actually I have taken a look at Soft redirect and think that putting one of those useful things here will be much better than making this a redlink (which might leave our readers in the dark). Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dmcdevit. This is just a list of dictionary definitions - it is not an encylopaedic article. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  05:20, 16 February 2007 (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.