Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Navy slang
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Navy slang
- )
Merely a list of dictdefs.
]- Delete - per nom. —The preceding ]
- Weak keep I have no problem with this list (though perhaps it should be titled "List of US Navy slang), as many of the entries are not dicdefs at all, but somewhat well-developed short paragraphs. I only feel strongly enough to !vote "week keep" because the entries are not verified with citations; however, I'm still !voting keep because I'd assume that most of the entries are covered by all of the external links. In addition to keeping the article, I would urge a trimming to eliminate any and all unverifiable terms. -- Kicking222 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is very well referenced in terms of sources, and the result of a great deal of hard work. Ideally each entry would be footnoted to the sources, but this is not an enforced standard to which other WP articles are held, so why should this be singled out. It clearly goes beyond a dictionary as it is a collection of historic and contemporary slang not appropriate to a dictionary. It has potential as a valuable resource. --Kevin Murray 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Prune, remove all of the single line and unreferenced entries; there are too many well-developed ones that could stand as stubs on their own for me to offer a blanket delete. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there's nothing wrong with having a list of Navy terms in an encyclopedia. Squidfryerchef 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Has already been transwikied to Wiktionary, no need to keep it here. Redirect to Wiktionary if possible. -- Kesh 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - its style may to the casual user full of casual POV and joking prose but which is no worse than slang used in rapper articles and the like where the F word appears constantly. Military jargon, especially slang, reflects a distinct heritage. Ronbo76 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Redirect to Wiktionary I have used this page in the past and it is useful, but on the other hand it is already at Wiktionary. If anything should be done, the page should be redirected to Wiktionary (in order to avoid redundancy). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Prior to this discussion, it had been tagged with the standard prod. I removed the prod and offered to improve the article. Navy and all slang are more than just a dictionary. It reflects military heritage which is not often considered by civilians. And, it can be linked to other articles where the jargon is being used without really being known what it fully means and came from.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 17:53, January 6, 2007
- While I have the utmost respect for military personnel, a simple list of jargon is not encyclopedic. Perhaps articles could be created for individual terms, if they can be shown to be notable, but the list itself really doesn't belong as a seperate Wikipedia article. -- Kesh 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What really disappoints me about where this article is linked to (OPSEC because abbreviated code words were used that the enemy did not know. Kind of like discovering what some knowledgeable Marines developed with Windtalkers. This is just a short history of military slang which goes back to our American Revolution and even when the second caveman raised a club. Ronbo76 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. Military slang is a list of lists. That's not good. However, that sounds like a good project: rewrite that article to be about the history and use of military slang, rather than just a list of other articles that are, themselves, dictionary lists. I think such an article would be valuable to Wikipedia, more valuable than a simple dictionary list of the terms. -- Kesh 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With that rationale (and I am not attacking but posing a question), what about its overall category, Category:Military slang and jargon? We prune here; we might as attack the whole tree. (Please note: I am somewhat a new user here with six months experience; one as a registered contributor and do not know how to make the category show. There are 51 pages on that list.) Ronbo76 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends. Should be considered on an article-by-article basis. Some terms, like AWOL have become so well-known outside military circles they may warrant an article themselves. Others, not so much. It may be that the tree needs heavy pruning, to keep it healthy, but no need to kill it off. -- Kesh 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends. Should be considered on an article-by-article basis. Some terms, like
- With that rationale (and I am not attacking but posing a question), what about its overall category, Category:Military slang and jargon? We prune here; we might as attack the whole tree. (Please note: I am somewhat a new user here with six months experience; one as a registered contributor and do not know how to make the category show. There are 51 pages on that list.) Ronbo76 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. Military slang is a list of lists. That's not good. However, that sounds like a good project: rewrite that article to be about the history and use of military slang, rather than just a list of other articles that are, themselves, dictionary lists. I think such an article would be valuable to Wikipedia, more valuable than a simple dictionary list of the terms. -- Kesh 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What really disappoints me about where this article is linked to (
- Comment to all users in this discussion Military slang is a topic that is huge. It isn't too big to be categorized, but it is tough. What I would suggest is a completely new template (not Wikipedia template, but rather writing outline) for this slang page. Maybe having slang listed by war or by first usage (those that were developed long ago but are still in use could be listed under contemporary). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Verifiable and useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perhaps not all articles about )(some group of people's) Sland should be accepted, but the Navy is so noteworthy as a source for slang that this one is surely one of the ones that should be kept. Having the list is useful, per WP:LIST.DGG 05:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.