Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 AD glossary: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →[[2000 AD glossary]]: Delete |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m Changing !vote. |
||
Line 22:
*****'''Sur-reply comment''' That sole ''external link'' you point to (which I'll treat as if it was properly cited as a reference) is to an ''[[WP:RS|unreliable source]]''. It doesn't even serve to verify the material, much less show its [[WP:N|notability]] as we use that word here. The website is commercial, doesn't appear to be independent of the subject, shows no evidence of having an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight, and so on. Furthermore the underlying material is very derivative. This is not a glossary of terms of art/jargon of a general subject matter (as most glossaries are), but of made up words in one fictional universe. Such minutia detail treatment is highly specialized material often inappropriate for a general encyclopedia. Still, if it was published in multiple reliable sources we'd have a lot more to discuss—and there's the rub—minutia from fictional universes is very rarely the subject of multiple reliable sources.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Cleary violating the Wikipedia is not a glossary/annex/dictionary criteria.--[[User:JForget|JForget]] 14:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
*<s>'''Strong keep'''</s>: Glossaries are not dictionaries. Citation to [[WP:DICT]] here is a complete misunderstanding of what WP:DICT says and means, making many of the comments here moot. Another way of looking at this: Many enc. articles (here and in paper encs.) provide glossaries, and we would not go around AfD'ing articles just because they contain glossaries. The only reason a page like the one at issue here exists as a separate glossary page is that it as it becomes too long for the main article, it is split out into a separate article, just like any other growing article section does. To attack Wikipedia glossaries on nominator's terribly faulty "test case" basis is to attack all articles that ''contain'' glossary materials, and even more signficantly to attack [[WP:SUMMARY]] as invalid. Furthermore in this specific case, the article fails the transwiki criteria to begin with, it does in fact have at least one cited source, and the entries are in many cases encyclopedic, providing background and history that would not be found in any dictionary entry.— <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC) !vote changed to '''Delete for reasons ''other'' than nominator's''': Now that this is (finally!) focusing on policy-cognizant issues as raised by Fuhghettaboutit, et al., I'm confident swinging to the delete side, so long as the point is not lost that I think the original nomination's rationale was utter bunk. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment in support of strong keep''': To quote from [[WP:DICT]]: "Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote." Glossaries are "articles...about...concepts". Glossaries are not articles about "'''a''' word '''or an''' idiomatic phrase", and fail the [[wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion]]. "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used...)" Glossaries (when properly written) clearly do the latter, not the former (any that does the former will usually be an obvious [[WP:NOR]] and/or [[WP:NPOV]] violation). I could go on, but it seems unnecessary to point out every single way in which [[WP:DICT]] simply does not apply here. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 20:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
***'''Comment''' it is interesting to see another similar glossary up for deletion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian and New Zealand punting glossary|here]] - they vote for deletion but put up a well argued case explaining why the calls to [[WP:DICT]] are invalid. They vote for deletion in the end because of the lack of [[WP:V]] and if it had it he'd vote keep. This has a sorce and if that was the issue I know I can find more (relying on fictional languages and invented terms means you have to print glossaries for new readers to catch up on). Soooo this has a source (and I can find more - although they will be pretty much like the first one), does not fit the criteria for being transwikied in the first place and glossaries aren't dictionaries - I am unsure what this is violating. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
| |||