Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Marines slang


 * 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, there was an equal number of keep, transwiki and delete votes, the but the main problem is that non of it is sourced, thus violating WP:CITE and WP:V, not worth the transwiki and AFD isn't a vote. Jaranda wat's sup 01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Royal Marines slang


Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An unmaintainable list of (military urban) dictionary definitions. Entirely unverified original research. -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep A similar article for US Navy slang is being transwikied. I think that might be a good compromise, as this list has the potential to be endless, but slang is of interest to many people. K e rowyn Leave a note 09:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment By your "Keep" vote are you implying that you also want this article to remain in Wikipedia? I certainly wasn't suggesting that these definitions couldn't exist in Wikitionary. (Although, frankly, I doubt most of them would meet Wikitionary's standards of attestation.) -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  09:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki then delete per nom. MER-C 09:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete So much text, so few sources. Where is the proof of notability? MartinDK 09:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki as Wiktionary appendix. --Howrealisreal 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments on gay slang; also note the existence of Category:Glossaries and Category:Terminology and more specific military related categories. Carlossuarez46 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Is that this comment, where you accuse that AfD nomination of being inherently homophobic? I have raised legitimate problems with this article, citing some of Wikipedia's core policies, that you have failed to address. You have also invoked Uncle G's "If article X then article Y" fallacy, which I think speaks for itself. Finally, the implication that I am prejudiced against members of the Royal Marines and homosexuals (I also voted to have that article deleted) is utterly preposterous, extremely offensive and completely untrue. -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  01:50, 15 November 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.