Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 AD glossary: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:44, 24 July 2007

Revision as of 09:21, 29 July 2007

Line 31:

**'''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> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93; <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))

****'''Reply comment''': Indeed. What is happening here is that [[User:Remember the dot]] brought up the issue at the Village Pump ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)%20pump%20%28policy%29&oldid=147742834#Glossaries| here]]), and got only ''one'' supporting voice, but decided to go on an AfD spree anyway, despite lack of any community buy-in for the idea. As for the two glossaries (that I know of) presently up at AfD, they might well be deletable on some other grounds, but I would prefer to see these current AfDs end with "keep" or "no consensus" and for them to be AfD'd a second time, raising actually policy-cognizant problems such as [[WP:V]]. [[User:Remember the dot]] is trying, clearly, to use these AfDs as a precendent-setter for the idea that any glossary can be zapped, and I remain concerned that if either of these AfDs close as "delete" for reasons other than the one that R.t.d. raised, that they'll be seen as precendential regardless, and despite the ''overwhelming'' yawn of unethusiasm for this "kill the glossaries" campaign at the Village Pump. I hope that the closing admins will note carefully that the vast majority of the ''delete'' !vote are "me too" parroting of the nominator, whose entire rationale has been substantively questioned, and that those questions remain unaddressed. The potential for damage here is quite severe, as some of the glossaries on Wikipedia are massively used as terminology link targets in non-list article prose. I doubt that is the case with either of the two up for AfD right now, but they were obviously selected carefully for their weaknesses. If they are to be deleted it should be in second AfDs that address those WP-policy-recognized weakenesses, not the [[Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Format of the lists|novel and already disproven theory]] that Wikipedia cannot have any glossaries or that glossaries are automatically non-encyclopedic. A quick read of the [[2000 AD glossary]] shows that it is not dictionarian at all, but provides a lot of encyclopedically-written information. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 07:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

*****'''Comment''' yes I checked their contribs after they tagged it and they'd PRODed a number of glossaries ([[Glossary of alternative medicine]], [[List of glossaries]], [[Australian and New Zealand punting glossary]], [[Automotive design terminology]], [[Glossary of terms in Ayurveda]], [[Glossary of arithmetic and Diophantine geometry]], [[Architectural glossary]] and [[Glossary of American football]] between 18:02 and 18:07 on 16 July. As they'd clear not bothered reading the talk page to check the issues (as there comments above show as well) I de-PRODed it (as it appears everyone has done with all the others) and Remember the dot relisted this and the punting one for AfD. As you say this might be suitable for deletion but none of the grounds stated above fit and it is a sign of something being up that the justifactions wander all over the place from "its been transwikied" to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" (which as you say don't apply) to "Its original research" (which being sourced and further sourcable doesn't apply either). it'd be a shame if this was deleted (and formed a precedent for deleting other glossaries) on shaky grounds. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 12:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

* '''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Slavlin|Slavlin]] 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)